Review – 24: Live Another Day | Jack Bauer’s Return

• Tweet

• Tweet

24 was always a combination politics, propaganda, and entertainment.  Now that the series has returned following a four year absence, we examine what the first episodes in this new run bring to the pop culture table.  Is the show still an ardent supporter of American foreign policy or have the politics behind the scenes changed? Listen to the review on The Artist in American History podcast now by pressing the Play button in the media player at the bottom of this post or download using the following links:

Download MP3 (Right Click and Save)

Download from iTunes

Review – 24: Live Another Day

Podcast Transcript

24 is a strange beast.  In spite of the fact that the show’s baseline philosophy and political agenda are about as far removed from my own as I can imagine, I draw significant pleasure from the series.  In previous years the show has been almost openly Islamophobic (season two is shockingly blunt, a type of Invasion of the Body Snatchers for the post 9/11 world), pro-torture, and quick to mock those who do not fall in line with Jack Bauer’s rather two dimensional view of the world.  It is a show which elicits frustration from an audience used to seeing its protagonist proved right in almost all situations – when Jack is confronted, as he so often is, by those who would check his willingness to use torture, or to do whatever it takes to avert disaster, the action is slowed and the possibility of cataclysm amplified.  Jack is, in truth, surrounded by such characters, those designed to funnel a view of the world incompatible with Bauer’s (and now-departed show creator Joel Surnow’s) own and, through their ineptitude, the audience is provided with its constant source frustration.  In the world of 24, Jack is good, the terrorists or other villains are bad, and most other people, who can’t be classified as supporters of either camp, tend to be a nuisance – at best.  They might be idealistic, they might be well meaning, but more often than not, their actions aid the show’s antagonists.  This is pure twenty first century propaganda – “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”.

Returning this week as the truncated miniseries 24: Live Another Day, this Kiefer Sutherland vehicle faces an uphill struggle  to rediscover its relevance following a four year absence and a three year final fun which could, charitably, be described as a mess.  It also faces the challenge of a new world that is –perhaps– less inclined to immerse itself in the type of anti-terror escapism that has always been the show’s bread and butter.  From the start, the fictional anti-terror organisation at the heart of the show, CTU, has had the ability to harvest vast amounts of data, to target and trace practically any member of the population, and to invade otherwise secure computer networks.  It has, in short, yielded the types of powers that have Edward Snowden’s leaks have made a real world concern.  This is an issue the two hour season premier deals with head on.  Chloe O’Brien, a long time collaborator of Jack’s and computer expert, has crossed over to the other side.  She is protesting the data gathering and spying of the US government (something she was happily compliant with when we last encountered the character) and she and Jack, in a terse, tense reunion, very quickly lay the issue to rest (at least for this episode).  Chloe protests that intelligence agencies hide what they are doing because their methods are illegal.  Jack, as quick as he has ever been, instantly fires back ‘you’re smarter than that.’  He’s speaking as much to the audience as he is to the character of Chloe, leveraging their past experience with the show to create an internal logic that works perfectly in the context of the show.  The audience, if they are truly suspending their disbelief, must know he’s right, they know data harvesting has worked in the show’s meta-fiction – and they know that Chloe cannot be considered a truly credible source at this point.  Every piece of visual symbolism around or attached to that character seems designed to prove that point.

In past seasons Chloe has, for the most part, been visualised in a consistently neutral manner – she has always dressed in a way that fit her professional surroundings.  In this new season, however, the symbolism of her hair, makeup, and clothing is striking.  In the past she was an unremarkable professional, working as a part of the system.  Now that she has removed herself, now that she is rebelling, she has taken on the trappings of an adolescent, lashing out against society.  Her hair is dark, her eyes are caked in black makeup (a reference to A Clockwork Orange? Perhaps), she is tattooed, and her clothing is distinctly goth-like in its appearance; in other words, Chloe’s rebellion is visually summed up by her transformation into a type of angry teenager archetype.  This is probably the worst, most offensive aspect of the revived show so far.  Jack Bauer is also on the run, and has been in the past, but the show’s producers have never changed his essential look.  As soon as the show’s leading woman rebels, however, she is painted in the colour of teenage rebellion – black.  It is a reprehensible stylistic choice.  There is nothing wrong with anyone choosing to dress that way in real life, but there is everything wrong with the show’s producers using that style as a symbolic weapon.

More than anything else, the new season’s treatment of Chloe, at least from a visual perspective, is demeaning but happily absent so far is even the slightest hint of overt Islamophobia and, if this is an indicator for the rest of the season, this might will be a welcome development.  To be sure, 24 has not always relied upon Islamic extremists to serve as antagonists – indeed, one Nixon-esq president of the United States was a key villain during the show’s initial run but, even in the face of this, Islamic extremists have been the shows most prolific set of adversaries.  The problem was not the presentation of Islamic extremists taking on the mantle of terrorists, it was in the way the show tried, sometimes consciously, to suggest that all followers of Islam were a threat or that they should accept extra surveillance, and so on, in order to demonstrate their loyalty.  Such a suggestion is, at its root, a nasty, virulent form of racism that paints a vast, vast majority of good and noble people with the reprehensible paint of a tiny minority.  The show would often defend that practice and though it did acknowledge how problematic that world view is, it never really tore it down – in fact, and in general, it did the opposite.  It fortified that position and attempted to rationalise that which cannot, when all cards are played, be defended.  Perhaps a listener of this episode might take issue with that world view and that is, of course, their right but to such a listener I want to make a brief address.

Consider, if you will, a world following the Oklamhoma bombings where mainstream Christians were directly identified as a target of national suspicion; where they were routinely used to depict the threat of atrocity, or as a fundamental danger to the United States.  That might seem like an odd proposition, it might even seem ridiculous, but consider that that is precisely the type of logic which underlies post 9/11 Islamophobia.  If it appears ridiculous that everyday Christians should have become the target of fear and propaganda following Oklahoma, as they are in our hyptoethical world, is there not an argument to be made that post 9/11 Islamophobia, which ties vast numbers of good and reasonable people of faith with an extremist minority, is equally as ridiculous? I doubt very much, if you feel contrary to myself on this subject, that I can convince you otherwise here, but consider this.  At the very least, there is a case to be made against a position of default suspicion.  There is an argument to made, simply based upon the logic that we would not do the same to the broader Christian community, that suspicion should not fall upon the wider Muslim community.  There is a case to be made, even if I cannot convince you as to the veracity of that case.  24, however, rarely makes that case in a credible way; certainly not prior to its sixth season, and thereafter only in a deeply ham fisted way that never really succeeded in undoing or seriously challenging the Islamophobia that came before.  Season six made an effort, to be sure, but it never really compromised its core values and was ultimately a net loss in that regard, reinforcing more ideas than it was able, or willing, to challenge.  Season six was the show’s attempt to deal with its own Islamophobia – arguably, it made the situation worse.

Live Another Day may very well sidestep that issue and, it seems, its focus on drone warfare may provide it with an opportunity to protest, rather than support, American foreign policy.  So far Jack Bauer has utterly dismissed the usefulness of government whistle blowers by bringing up some familiar arguments against them as self evident truth, whilst Chloe’s symbolic makeover seems to reflect the show’s ideological stance on that issue.  Though it is conceivable this might change as the season progresses, it seems unlikely – Chloe’s colleagues are depicted in too loaded, too pejorative a manner to easily be transformed into unqualified heroes.  Perhaps that might happen, but I doubt it.  Much more likely, I feel, is the show focusing its critique upon the use of drones.  Already, by the end of episode two, the ability of drones to alienate the support of America’s allies has been touched upon, as has the idea that, if given an open and honest stage on which it can state its case clearly, the United States would be able to convince those same allies as to the validity and necessity of such programs.  Guessing the future twists and turns of 24 is, however, a fool’s game.  The show may well double down upon what it presents as the necessity of drone warfare whilst highlighting the need to protect such programs from misuse or it may well go on the offensive.  There are already hints that drone program may be thematically linked to the failing health of US president Heller in the series, perhaps foreshadowing the idea that the program has outlived its usefulness.  Given 24’s fairly open political alignment in the past this would not be particularly surprising.  The Obama administration has, in my view, been rightly criticised for its drone policy and an attack upon that program may well allow this season to launch a proxy attack upon the administration.  Of course I may well be reading far too much into the hints contained in a show notorious for its twists and turns but however this season plays out it seems safe to say to that 24 has retained its deeply political heart.  It seems to have a point to make and it will be interesting to see how that point is revealed over the course of the next ten episodes.

24 is at once  one of the most popular and controversial television programs currently on the air.  It has a legacy steeped in a specific political agenda which it sells through a brilliantly tense, thrilling structure and execution.  Just as Roger Ebert once argued that The Birth of a Nation was a brilliant film that made the case for evil, 24 is a brilliant television show, one of the best of its kind, but one which makes a case that is often troubling or deeply problematic.  The revived series follows in that tradition, marrying the brilliance of its execution with a deep seated political agenda.  It is difficult to say at this early stage to imagine how Live Another Day will ultimately play out and what its final political point is likely to be, but it’s there, waiting to reveal itself.