Comments on: That Other Jack

By: Jonathan Gray

Jonathan Gray — Sun, 30 May 2010 21:38:00 +0000

but there were women presidents on film and TV before Hillary ran too, so I think there’s waaaaay more in play here than who got to be pres. on a TV show that only a very small portion of people watched anyways

By: Elizabeth Rose

Elizabeth Rose — Sun, 30 May 2010 20:09:51 +0000

Thanks for the link, Derek, I missed that one. I agree, it seems to me to be more a matter of zeitgeist than cause-and-effect. But, for better and worse, Americans do tend to let television reflect that for them. (Some of which is about the medium, some about the general human reaction to storytelling and playacting. And I won’t speak for other nations, as I am American and see the medium and the pop culture through American eyes.)

Seeing an African-American president – albeit a fictional one – allowed Americans to imagine the reality when the cognitive concept alone was insufficient. For better or worse, we do still tend to view others through the lens of emotional evocation rather than objective or empirical evidence about their abilities and qualifications. Which brings to mind how hard fought the primary races between Clinton and Obama were, some could not get past their negative perceptions of then-Senator Clinton, which gave Obama the wedge he needed. (IMO.) I was one of those with less-than-positive perceptions of Hillary, but when our caucus time came, I’d like to think I was assessing them more on qualification than “gut feelings.” But I wonder now how I would’ve felt had Cherry Jones/Allison Taylor been the presidential candidate in that first season of *24*?

By: Elizabeth Rose

Elizabeth Rose — Sun, 30 May 2010 19:52:45 +0000

It might be helpful to be mindful of the entomology of “conservatism”. Going green is quite consistent with a conservative perspective. I think it’s important that we differentiate between far-right-wing backlash and real conservatism, where it is understood (as it is with traditional liberals and libertarians and progressives and centrists), to paraphrase that famous old saying, we may not agree with what others say, but we’ll fight to the death for their right to say it.

By: Derek Johnson

Derek Johnson — Sun, 30 May 2010 14:23:16 +0000

Thanks, Elizabeth! Dennis Haysbert himself would agree with you! 🙂

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/dennis-haysbert-i-paved-o_n_110359.html

I’m not sure I want to give him as much direct credit as he wants to give himself, but I think it certainly speaks to the way in which national politics are often imagined directly through fictional representations (insert too-easy Fox News joke here). This makes shows like 24, The West Wing, and Commander in Chief crucial sites for exploring the politics of the last decade.

By: Elizabeth Rose

Elizabeth Rose — Thu, 27 May 2010 20:04:20 +0000

I enjoyed your criticism too Derek, and thought you (and commenters) were “on target.” (Sorry for the word play.) As for paratexts, I tended to watch (or not watch) the show based on its own merits, that is, if the story entertained and edified me (or not). Of course, I didn’t ignore the outside influences or politics (goddess forbid! HA!), I just didn’t use them to assess the show. On the other hand, I was among the many viewers and critics predicting years ago that we would have an African-American President in the not-distant future because of the characters David and Wayne Palmer. (Especially David, Dennis Haysbert was something special in that role.) So maybe those comments and critiques were actually paratext. And thanks to Cherry Jones’ amazing performance, I’d say it safe to say we’ll be considering women for the job again. (Did anyone else see Allison Taylor as a reflection of the perceptions of Hillary Clinton, good, bad, and in-between?) For all its ups and downs, *24* was one of the most diverse shows on TV, and never compromised by taking the “easy villain” route, exemplifying this perfectly in the finale. In a nation where too many are content seeing things as black and white, *24* always kept it gray, and I appreciate that. And Kiefer Sutherland has always been a bulwark of amazing acting in what had to be one of the demanding roles on television.

By: Elizabeth Rose

Elizabeth Rose — Thu, 27 May 2010 19:48:45 +0000

To be fair to at least one of the crying women, Chloe was crying IMHO for the Jack who crossed the red zone, a friend lost, not so much for her own situation, except as it related to Jack. She doesn’t know yet that she has a movie to do (which I hope allows Jack to be redeemed again). 😉

By: Jeffrey Jones

Jeffrey Jones — Wed, 26 May 2010 17:52:23 +0000

For what it’s worth, I think this would make for a nice academic article–the textual analysis, plus some of the production background. I say this out of self-interest–I’d like to cite it right this minute (in something I’m writing)! 😉

By: Derek Johnson

Derek Johnson — Wed, 26 May 2010 14:23:12 +0000

I don’t know how much Surnow’s cigar-chomping conservatism actually translated to a control over the writers’ room and the political perspectives they might try to bring to the show. But I do know that Surnow actually left the day-to-day production of the series in early season 7, at which point ex-X-Files and Angel producer Howard Gordon (who describes himself as a Democrat) grabbed the creative reigns. Gordon is also credited for being a driving creative force as early as seasons 2 and 3, however. What I find interesting is that Gordon rarely ‘t emphasized his own politics as much in promoting the show as Surnow did, which might suggest that despite his own views, he sees some value in perception of the show as conservative (maybe because liberalism and action heroics don’t go as well together generically?)

There’s an interesting Newsweek article here about 24’s attempts to be a “green” production that uncovers some of these tensions between a assumed-to-be conservative counterterrorism show going green, and between Democratic and Republican writers on the same staff:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/72535

By: Jeffrey Jones

Jeffrey Jones — Wed, 26 May 2010 13:50:51 +0000

Great article and conversation here, and yep, I fit the last category (not a viewer but interested in the show’s politics), so I can answer your question, Derek. The big paratext for me is Joel Surnow and his intentionality. I haven’t read a ton on him (seen some interviews here and there), but do know that he wears his conservatism proudly. I like your reading, and thinking Jonathan may be spot on about the openness of the text. So that leads me to the production question–given Surnow’s politics, how much of a hand does he have in writing the show? What do we know about the other writers?

By: Derek Johnson

Derek Johnson — Wed, 26 May 2010 13:01:30 +0000

You know I was kind of expecting someone to take my reading to task here, so thanks everyone for making me feel less like I’m stretching against all odds to find some personal value and meaning in Rush Limbaugh’s favorite show. Granted, we’re a pretty a small pool (should have written about Lost!), but I think it adds some credence to Elizabeth’s comments above that many of the assumptions about the fundamental right-wingedness of 24 often come from those who haven’t watched the show. Which ties right into Jonathan’s work with paratexts, in that Limabaugh’s ability to broadcast his interpretation of the show, soldiers’ publicized claims that they learned torture techniques from it, or just its position on the Fox network, that give the series as much if not more meaning than its own characterizations. For anyone reading who doesn’t watch the show, I’d be curious to what paratexts shaped your major perceptions of the series (and perhaps your decision to avoid it!).