James Bond. Jason Bourne. Jack Bauer. Contemporary film and
television’s top spies epitomize Anglo-physical perfection: blonde hair,
ice-blue eyes, toned bodies. 24’s Jack
Bauer, however, is the ideological anomaly. While Bond battles international
megalomaniacs and Bourne defends himself from his country’s own agents, Jack
Bauer remains quintessentially hawkish. Unlike Bond, he’s unconcerned with sex
or witticisms (he tells the women in his life ‘I’ll be right there’ before
running off to fight terrorists and smiles maybe
once per season). Unlike Bourne, he’s unapologetic in his use of violence (when
he decides to hack off his daughter’s lover’s hand to defuse a bomb in season
three, he doesn’t even blink). Unlike both Bond and Bourne, he often sacrifices
friends, family, and coworkers for the American good (like killing his boss to
stop the spread of a lethal virus). Truly, Bauer embodies post-9/11 neoconservativism:
a strong America assured of itself and uncorrupted in its ‘values’. Always,
Bauer battles the ‘other’, a seditious force intent on taking American lives
and civil liberties. In characterizing the villains of its sixth season, the
show exploits the fear of Muslim terrorists operating freely on American soil. 24 could be accused of simply embodying
the Bush administration’s homeland agenda but for its reliance on Orientalist stereotypes
uses harmful parody to color its Muslim characters.
To
understand 24’s conservative agenda,
one must grasp its hero. In a 2005 USA
Today interview, the show’s producer, Howard Gordon, said Jack Bauer “taps
into the public’s ‘fear-based wish fulfillment’ of having protectors…who will
do whatever is necessary to save society from harm.” This usually involves
torture. “‘[Bauer] is a tragic character. He doesn't get away with it clean.
He’s got blood on his hands,’ Gordon says. ‘In some ways, he is a necessary
evil’” (Bauder). Calling him an anti-hero undermines Jack’s political
importance in the fear-mongering Bush-era in which he was born. “The disturbing
appeal of Jack the Torturer reflects a wounded and frightened national psyche,
a desire to lash out at those responsible for 9/11, and the frustration of a
superpower unable to defeat a ragged band of terrorists” (McCormick 17).
Bauer’s dramatic core, however, is similar to the Hollywood cowboys of Wayne
and Eastwood. Though a government agent, Jack distrusts politicians and
bureaucracy, and operates by his own moral code. Yet, after saving the day, he
most always returns to government service.
"Hey, brother. Long time no see" - Jack's brother discovers family reunions aren't what they used to be. |
In
post Abu-Ghraib America, 24 takes
great strides to prove that for whatever diplomatic laws Jack breaks, he
suffers for in his personal life. Through eight seasons and a TV movie, Bauer loses
a wife, coworkers, friends, and estranges his only daughter. His politics,
however, remain 24’s driving force.
Jim McDermott humorously dissects Jack Bauer in America. “Yes, he tortures prisoners and shoots co-workers in the
head, but he’s not a bad person. He’s just caught in a bad situation” (23). Still,
the show enforces his rationale: his ends justify his means. “[Jack] demonstrates
what few may care to admit: in the war on terror, the conservative movement has
become willing to sacrifice principle to passion and difficult moral reasoning
to utility” (Dougherty 9). Jack Bauer is not “America”. He does, however,
represent values 24 believes sacred,
ones entrenched in American lore: self-sacrifice, results before diplomacy, and
an unbending “sense” of right and wrong opposed by those too weak to do what is
“right”.
In season six, 24
cherry-picks this sense of right and wrong with abandon. A New York Times column “compared 24’s focus on domestic terror threats to the
Bush administration’s focus on Iraq” (Bauder).
Whether Jack Bauer is a sadistic sinner or patriotic saint, in the 24 world America is unique, and its
villains need to clearly wear the black hat or else its sense of right and wrong
might be complicated by nagging realism.
In Part 2, I’ll examine the villains in previous seasons of
24 and how they adhere to us vs. them
U.S. geo-political archetypes.
Bibliography
“Day 4.” “Day 6.” 24.
Fox, 2005, 2007.
“24 Under Fire from Muslim Groups.” BBC News. BBC News, 19 January 2007.
Armstrong, Stephen. "Rough Justice." New
Statesman 136.4836 (2007): 36-38.
Bauder, David. “TV Torture Influencing Real
Life.” USA Today. 11 February
2007.
Dougherty, Michael Brendan. "What Would Jack Bauer
Do?" American Conservative 6.5
(2007): 8-10.
Flynn, Gillian. “24: TV Review.” Entertainment Weekly. 11 January 2007.
Halliday, Fred. 100
Myths About the Middle East. Los Angeles: University of California Press,
2005.
Irwin, Robert. Dangerous
Knowledge: Orientalism and its Discontents. New York: Overlook
Press, 2006.
Lewis, Bernard. From
Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004.
McCormick, Patrick. "The Torture Show." U.S.
Catholic 73.5 (2008): 17.
McDermont, Jim. “A Trojan Horse.” America 196.7 (2007): 23-24.
Rossi, Melissa. What
Every American Should Know About the Middle East. New York: Plume
Books, 2008.
Said, Edward. Orientalism.
New York: Vintage, 1978.
Yuan, Jada. “The White-Castle Ceiling.” New York Magazine. 4 March 2007.
4 comments:
Interesting. It appears Jack's "end justifies the means" tactic is trapping him into some sort of "solution limbo" in a "problem, solution, result" arena. His immoral means are pushing him out of his intended "solution" position, and he's being pulled into the "problem" realm.
His ruthlessness in attempting to battle "the bad guys" has left those he's protecting maimed and disillusioned. Jack is corrupting what he's trying to protect. Who's winning with this outcome? Seems like his tactics are unwittingly putting him on the side of the enemy, instead of hero. Maybe a less reactionary tactic could be a more advantageous strategy for Jack to reach his end? He should take a hard look at the implications of his means/actions…
I might have to start watching 24!
Let me see if I can finally comment on here.
It worked! After two months! Finally!
Jack's problem is that he's never really protecting those that matter most to him. In essence, to keep the average American safe, he has to give up family members, friends, and coworkers. The show tries to justify his reactionary tactics as A) not reactionary in that he's trained to do this, and B) he must utilize this training or else risk losing both his occupational and personal duties.
This could be an overall commentary on the wrongheadedness of the Bush presidency, but the show takes too many steps to both sympathize with Jack and show his necessity in such a violent, threatening world.
Post a Comment