Spoilers below...
So this seventh season of 24 ends in fairly obvious fashion; Kim Bauer volunteers for some experimental treatment so that Jack can be cured through phony-baloney stem-cell medicine (stem-cells must be a godsend to sci-fi writers, nobody knows what they are or what they do, so you can make up any crazy shit you want). President Whats-Her-Name sends her dumbass, killing-federal-witnesses daughter to jail and in the process drives away her husband. Tony's master plan is predictably ridiculous and he gets caught. Plus, Agent Walker decides that, since the season is over, she might as well throw her career away and torture the main bad guy. Just another day in the 24-verse.
The show still suffers from not being able to sustain its central conceit: namely that all this lunacy could happen in 24 hours. Also, as per usual, the plan of the bad guys was needlessly complicated and ideologically confused. And the personal drama surrounding the President felt like a tedious distraction from the real story rather than a worthwhile subplot.
Still, this season was a marked improvement over the last, if only because it didn't suck horribly. Setting the action in Washington, D.C. was a nice change of pace from the usual location in L.A., and it made the interactions between Jack, the FBI, and the White House more plausible. And the writers made much better use of supporting cast members who, unlike Jack, could potentially be killed (and several of them were). There was even an effort to confront the issue of torture in a slightly more nuanced fashion.
For all its many faults, 24 remains one of the few TV shows dedicated to fast-paced, non-stop entertainment. It isn't a CSI knockoff or yet another show about lawyers or doctors; it's an action movie every week. So will the next season build off the improvements of this one? Only time will tell, but I'll be one of the viewers who sticks around for Day 8.
Showing posts with label 24. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 24. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Why I Love 24
24 is a show that survives on the short attention span of the viewer. The audience must never stop to think about all the crazy shit that happens in a twenty-four hour period. Let's recap:
Jack is interrogated by a Senate sub-committee;
Domestic terrorists steal a device that allows them to hack anything (don't ask);
The terrorists actually work for a genocidal African government that wants to prevent a U.S. humanitarian intervention into their country;
They almost get away with causing a chemical spill disaster at an Ohio pesticide plant;
They do get away with crashing two airliners into each other above the National Mall;
The President's husband is kidnapped and shot by the bad guys;
The U.S. invades the African country anyway;
Once Jack and co. recover the device, the evil African leader launches a raid on the White House (the WHITE HOUSE!) and smacks around the President;
All of this was apparently a diversion (invading the White House was a DIVERSION!) so that an evil security contracting firm could smuggle a biological weapon into the U.S.;
A U.S. Senator is murdered;
The security contractors threaten to launch bio-weapon missiles at U.S. cities unless the President makes them part of the national security apparatus;
Once Jack and his pal Tony foil that plot, it's reveal that the evil security firm is part of an even LARGER plot;
Tony pulls the old double-cross a steals some of the bio-weapon;
All of this has happened in less than 24 hours
Jack is interrogated by a Senate sub-committee;
Domestic terrorists steal a device that allows them to hack anything (don't ask);
The terrorists actually work for a genocidal African government that wants to prevent a U.S. humanitarian intervention into their country;
They almost get away with causing a chemical spill disaster at an Ohio pesticide plant;
They do get away with crashing two airliners into each other above the National Mall;
The President's husband is kidnapped and shot by the bad guys;
The U.S. invades the African country anyway;
Once Jack and co. recover the device, the evil African leader launches a raid on the White House (the WHITE HOUSE!) and smacks around the President;
All of this was apparently a diversion (invading the White House was a DIVERSION!) so that an evil security contracting firm could smuggle a biological weapon into the U.S.;
A U.S. Senator is murdered;
The security contractors threaten to launch bio-weapon missiles at U.S. cities unless the President makes them part of the national security apparatus;
Once Jack and his pal Tony foil that plot, it's reveal that the evil security firm is part of an even LARGER plot;
Tony pulls the old double-cross a steals some of the bio-weapon;
All of this has happened in less than 24 hours
Monday, January 19, 2009
Who needs Superman?
Bill Willingham's remarks at Big Hollywood stirred up quite a bit of controversy over the content of superhero comics and their political leanings. While I don't think this was Willingham's intent, a few commentators interpreted his statements as an accusation that liberalism had tainted superheroes by embracing a philosophy of moral ambiguity. To put it another way, conservatism embodies the true values of superheroes, particularly moral clarity and patriotism.
Steven Grant offered an interesting rebuttal, pointing out that traditional takes on superheroes, such as the much-maligned Superman Returns, have generally failed commercially since at least the 1970s. Grant further argued that conservatives from Reagan onward wanted heroes who were willing to do terrible things in the name of their country. In other words, altruistic, goodie-two-shoes like Superman were out, Oliver North was in.
This leads me to wonder, who is the target audience for Superman these day? Liberals? In general, liberals like stories that embrace moral complexity, where there are no absolute good guys or bad guys. Superman is simply not designed for these types of stories, which is no doubt why the character often feels hopelessly anachronistic in the modern, darker DCU. Yet conservatives don't seem terribly interested in reading his books or watching his movies either. I suspect the reason for this has much to do with what Grant was discussing, namely that conservatives view Superman, with his no-killing policy and naked altruism, as hopelessly naive. What conservatives want is a hero who possesses moral clarity and patriotism, and who is willing to do whatever it takes to defend his country. In other words, they want a consequentialist hero, for whom the ends justify the means.
And such a hero already exists. Jack Bauer from the TV series "24" is the epitome of the conservative action hero. He is a patriot, having served his country for the past 6 seasons of the show. He also has a firm and unwavering sense of good and evil. During the current season's opener, Bauer fought an African warlord and saved the lives of a dozen young boys. And Bauer is willing to do whatever it takes to get the bad guys. He's killed, he's tortured suspects, and he's repeatedly broken countless laws in the name of defending his country. These qualities have made Bauer something of a cultural icon of the post 9/11 era, and his popularity apparently reaches up to the Supreme Court (Justice Scalia is a fan).
To put it simply, conservatives don't need Superman. Neither do liberals. He's the hero of a bygone age, whose values no longer resonate with modern readers (or at least readers over the age of 10). At least he's still got nostalgia working for him, but how long will that last?
Steven Grant offered an interesting rebuttal, pointing out that traditional takes on superheroes, such as the much-maligned Superman Returns, have generally failed commercially since at least the 1970s. Grant further argued that conservatives from Reagan onward wanted heroes who were willing to do terrible things in the name of their country. In other words, altruistic, goodie-two-shoes like Superman were out, Oliver North was in.
This leads me to wonder, who is the target audience for Superman these day? Liberals? In general, liberals like stories that embrace moral complexity, where there are no absolute good guys or bad guys. Superman is simply not designed for these types of stories, which is no doubt why the character often feels hopelessly anachronistic in the modern, darker DCU. Yet conservatives don't seem terribly interested in reading his books or watching his movies either. I suspect the reason for this has much to do with what Grant was discussing, namely that conservatives view Superman, with his no-killing policy and naked altruism, as hopelessly naive. What conservatives want is a hero who possesses moral clarity and patriotism, and who is willing to do whatever it takes to defend his country. In other words, they want a consequentialist hero, for whom the ends justify the means.
And such a hero already exists. Jack Bauer from the TV series "24" is the epitome of the conservative action hero. He is a patriot, having served his country for the past 6 seasons of the show. He also has a firm and unwavering sense of good and evil. During the current season's opener, Bauer fought an African warlord and saved the lives of a dozen young boys. And Bauer is willing to do whatever it takes to get the bad guys. He's killed, he's tortured suspects, and he's repeatedly broken countless laws in the name of defending his country. These qualities have made Bauer something of a cultural icon of the post 9/11 era, and his popularity apparently reaches up to the Supreme Court (Justice Scalia is a fan).
To put it simply, conservatives don't need Superman. Neither do liberals. He's the hero of a bygone age, whose values no longer resonate with modern readers (or at least readers over the age of 10). At least he's still got nostalgia working for him, but how long will that last?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)