Jack Bauer’s Creators, We Need You—Mid-season Ruminations on 24

24-philosphyIf you’re a 24 fan and you haven’t yet seen tonight’s episode, you better save this post for later. It might reveal more than you want to know, which is ironic, given what I’m about to say.

This has been a remarkably engaging season, given the challenge its writers have faced to be fresh and unpredictable. Even more so given some other challenges it has set for itself. Some of these have to do with the writing, some have to do with the marketing.

The writing. Is the FBI really as inept as it’s portrayed here? Tactical differences between Jack Bauer and FBI personnel have made sense. Larry fits the stereotype. His objectivity is fogged by his interest in an admittedly attractive agent who’s working a little too closely with Bauer, but he hangs in there pretty well. His capacity for rage hints that he’s not altogether unlike Bauer, whom he so patently loathes. Tonight, though, I think the script may have dropped a couple of points on the credibility score. Larry’s real life counterpart wouldn’t have been so clumsy about tightening the net on FBI infiltrators . . . would he? Wouldn’t that seedy-looking Shawn—or Sean—chap have been a possible? You would think. But not Larry. At least not soon enough. Even for the FBI. I hope.

Next, Rosa’s death. This was predictable. How it would happen wasn’t. That was a good story thread. We’ve known of innocent, uncomplicated civilians acting with valor at personal risk to thwart terrorism. Rosa’s desperate attack on the driver, causing a fatal accident, is believable. Remember 9/11? But is she the completely sympathetic character she needs to be for us, the viewers, to relate vitally to the angst played out so elaborately by agent what’s-her-name (the one who looks like she could be Jaclyn Smith redivivus, . . . or Jaclyn Smith’s daughter)? The pretty and gritty agent’s sentiments are realistic enough. But what do they do to advance the plot? Isn’t it a little smarmy?

Finally, why the silly stock antics by Tony when he appears on the steps next to Jack at the end of tonight’s episode? He steps down, removes his shades, and tells Jack that “it’s not over.” Once he’s satisfied that he’s nearly convinced Jack, he dons the glasses and says, “I need you, Jack.” Very original.

Point being—the writers are much too clever to settle for these derivatives. The sensational TV series still works for me. I’ll be tuning in next week. But something’s crept in here that has nothing to do with exhausting the storyline potential of the show.

The marketing. Here I’m talking about the way the series is played up by the show’s engineers between episodes. Tonight we were told to expect, before the episode began, that this hour would provide some significant closure. This was risky. And it worked, I think. There was closure, which is unusual for the series. But it didn’t ruin the effect. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen often. But it was refreshing to experience it on this segment. Did it have to be pre-announced? I think it may have been constructive, since most of us probably watched with wariness about that prospect, and thus experienced a heightened sense of tension.

So what’s the problem? After watching a fully riveting episode, the producers think we have to be told virtually everything that will happen next week to get us to come back. I don’t care what happens in the next episode—I know they revealed too much at the conclusion of tonight’s show. It’s anticlimactic—unless you have short-term memory loss, in which case you probably aren’t sure what’s going on from one week to the next and aren’t tuning in for that reason.

It’s been rumored, maybe for marketing effect, that the writers work inside the series close to the release of each episode, not knowing all that much about where they’re headed from episode to episode. Their spectacular series 24 is more believable than that. But let’s pretend there’s still time for tinkering. I have a selfish request—ligthen up on the shibboleths and can the forecasting. Your program has attracted an intelligent audience. They’re your core. Don’t let them down.

In case you couldn’t resist reading this post before seeing tonight’s episode, awaiting playback on your Tivo, here’s my advice: stop watching immediately after Tony walks away toward Constitution and First. I think you’ll enjoy the next week’s installment more than I will.

Note: Evidence of my enthusiasm for 24 can be found in my chapter in the book 24 and Philosophy.

Advertisements

About Doug Geivett
University Professor; PhD in philosophy; author; conference speaker. Hobbies include motorcycling, travel, kayaking, sailing.

6 Responses to Jack Bauer’s Creators, We Need You—Mid-season Ruminations on 24

  1. Glenn says:

    Hi Doug, I’m on the moderating team over at theologyweb.com, but my main project is Say Hello to my Little Friend.

    Like

  2. Doug Geivett says:

    Hi Glenn,

    Care to leave the link to the theology forum you moderate?

    Come on back when you have the opportunity. I was out of town last week and missed the most recent episode of 24. So last night I had to download a copy to my Tivo from Amazon!

    -Doug

    Like

  3. Glenn says:

    I’ve opted not to read this blog entry because I AM a 24 fan (at a theology forum where I moderate, my username is “Dr Jack Bauer”).

    I’ll have to return to this entry when I’ve seen the episode. This is, however, my first post at your fine blog, and I like what I see.

    Like

  4. Madeleine says:

    How cool! We love 24 too even though in New Zealand is not on until ridiculously late – prime time gets sexually provocative lite comedy and reality TV *rolls eyes*

    My husband, a philosopher, is a serious fan and is constantly analysing aspects of the program – I will have to buy him your book!

    Like

  5. Doug Geivett says:

    Rich,

    Thanks for posting the link to the shortened version of my chapter for your book. To clarify for readers of this post, the book is called 24 and Philosophy, and Philosopher’s Magazine published an abbreviated version of the chapter, “The Knowledge Game Can Be Torture.”

    Like

  6. Rich Davis says:

    Speaking of your chapter, Philosopher’s Magazine has an abbreviated version online here:

    http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/394/431/3329/3/84?dps=

    In my opinion, which should count for something since I’m one of the editors, it’s the best chapter in the book.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: