Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

24: Romantic Finesse

Rate this topic


RicardoSmith23

Recommended Posts

I rented the first season of 24. It was so good that I rented the rest and watched them all within a few weeks. This is the most exciting, brilliant show I have ever seen.

It's often praised as being "addicting" and "suspenseful"--which it is. But the real value in this show lies in 1) The unbending competence, confidence and overall character of Jack Bauer and 2) The incredibly dramatic, moral-dilemma situations he is (and other characters are) placed in. And every season is always brought to an unbearably exciting, unpredictable, action-packed climax. Kiefer Sutherland does an amazing acting job, as do most of the other characters. The plots are usually very solid, though there is ineptness in a few of them. But regardless of a few errors here and there, it's always full of unique and exhilerating situations. Season 2 is a prime example: it has some very, very, very bad elements in the plot that are borderline embarassing, but in spite of this it is still full of larger-than-life heroism and brilliant situations. Some seasons, however, have very tight, focused, dramatic and emotionally charged stories, the best being Season 4, in my opinion.

In essence, this show is a glorification of Jack Bauer--the perfect man you could envision to guard your country, and your own life. This show is radically romantic because Bauer never makes a mistake, and the joy is in watching him outsmart the most dangerous villains (and sometimes his own government) in the world and succeed in seemingly impossible situations. Thematically, and throughout all of the seasons, it's an analyses of what perfection does to a person in society--it alienates him. I wouldn't be able to elaborate without spoiling, but I would definitely recommend this show to objectivists as an unusually ingenius example of romantic art.

Philosophically, it's on-and-off. But it does blatantly glorify cold-blooded rationality as the most important requirement for survival, as well as absolute, life-or-death, Ninety-Three-esque devotion to one's values. The values that the heroes fight for (and often die for) are usually very personal, selfish values. In Season 1, Bauer doesn't hesitate to forget his patriotic "duty" when he has to choose between that and the lives of his wife and daughter. Other, side-protagonists are put in similar situations. Though these characters work for CTU (Counter Terrorist Unit), devotion to one's country is never more important to the heroes than their loved ones. The villains, however, are driven by a desperate anti-Western ideology, and often value their own nation or race more than their wives or children. Honesty in political life is shown to be not Platonically wrong, but ultimately self-destructive. The only philosophically bad is Season 2, in which an oil executive is the arch-villain, organizing an international series of international conflicts so that he can somehow profit from international war.

In spite of its comparatively insignificant errors, 24 is, I think, a must for romanticists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only is it value-oriented, it's value-fueled, value driven, value-dominated. Every major character, heroes and villains, are placed in morality situations, and they have to make choices. They have volition, and they aren't ruled by their environments. Some make right choices, some make wrong choices---and Jack Bauer always makes the right choice. In addition to that, the primary focus of the show is Jack Bauer's mental and physical competence, which allows him to do what's right every time. This is why it was created, and this is why people watch it. I can't think of anything more romantic than that. It's a celebration of the human capacity for triumph, even in the most precarious situations.

It does have tragic elements, but that's due to sense-of-life. The tragedy is always brilliantly accomplished and always creates future drama for future seasons, future battles for Jack to tackle. This show is the EPITOME of romanticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It's a good show, no doubt, I just dispute the idea that it is 'Romantic'. Romanticism is about more than just values, it's about choice, and the problem with '24' is that it's an eternal lifeboat situation. We aren't seeing the life that Jack lead, the decisions he made, that led him to where he is now. All we see, instead, are him making decisions, right now, with limited information, limited time, limited means. He's very often in some sort of lose/lose situation and it is very rarely that he even achieves any values - at best, he saves the day by violating the principles that give 'the day' any meaning, resulting in him having to go into hiding. Jack lives in a malevolent Universe in which nothing he does can ever really make things right, and this is echoed in the politic side-stories, in which the best decisions anyone can make are semi-altruistic compromises with the devil.

Do not confuse the fact that the show is 'gripping' with the nature of 'value'. Fighting to not have your values destroyed is not the same as achieving them, and especially not the case when any choice you make in the matter is severely diminished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best line ever:

Jack Bauer to the UN Representative(blue helmet in hand), with the rebels approaching, armed to the teeth: "Still wanna talk to them? I didn't think so. Why don't you go hide in the shelter with the other children?"

Yeah, that was great! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack lives in a malevolent Universe in which nothing he does can ever really make things right, and this is echoed in the politic side-stories, in which the best decisions anyone can make are semi-altruistic compromises with the devil.

You have some good thoughts, but there needs to be a distinction drawn between "malevolent" and "romantic." A work of art can be both.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good show, no doubt, I just dispute the idea that it is 'Romantic'. Romanticism is about more than just values, it's about choice, and the problem with '24' is that it's an eternal lifeboat situation.

Yes, if it were a truly romantic story the choices he faces would be between good and evil. As it stands, there is no such thing, he always has to choose between the bad and not so bad. I like the show though. Very close to what I would like to see more of :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have some good thoughts, but there needs to be a distinction drawn between "malevolent" and "romantic." A work of art can be both.

Oh of course, but 'malevolence' as a general rule of value, is the antithesis of Romanticism. Romanticism is about choosing, and your choice meaning something. And the point is, what Jack achieves doesn't mean anything. Leaving aside the fact that there is no value actually gained in a situation where involving force, only the prevention of loss - any value in saving the day is undermined by the fact that Jack ends up just being the pawn of some Terrorist's overall conspiracy, or some Politician's destructive aims.

And he lives constantly with the guilt of what he has done. Whether or not one should feel guilt for the things Jack must do, the fact is that it is an unchallenged premise throughout the whole series that what Jack is doing is morally wrong, or at least very 'grey'. And so even if we couldn't call it entirely malevolent, it is far from 'Romantic', in that Jack's actions and choices are always 'wrong' or at least 'not the best' or 'not good'.

So I guess, if you want to put it that way, Jack doesn't so much live in a malevolent universe, so much as an impotent one, which is roughly the same thing: namely that one's choices and actions ultimately have little meaning, no matter how much they might matter in the heat of the moment. It's the heat of the moment that keeps us watching, but it is that ultimate lack of meaning that leaves me unsatisfied in the end and unwilling to call this programme, 'Romantic'.

That said, I do enjoy watching 24, and however much it wavered over the last few seasons, 'Redemption' was good. I loved how it played up a variation of the Prudent Predator - sure, you can keep running from these things you've done, and keep creating false worlds to inhabit, false identities, but then your life is nothing but constant flight. You are never living for something, but instead living to avoid something else.

And I thought that Irish character, the owner of the school, portrayed quite well, by contrast that idea of turning that around, by finding something to live for (even if it was kinda altruistic, as if the only way he could live for something, was for it to be something beyond himself; unlike Jack, he doesn't have to run from anything, could put his life back together somewhere other than war-torn Africa).

Edited by Tenure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked how in 24:Redemption they basically shit all over the U.N.

We'll see how this next season turns out. In my opinion 24 has gotten somewhat stale over the last two seasons. I was hoping for a change of pace; I really expected the last season to be all about Jack escaping from China, but oh well.

Edited by ers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Romanticism is about choosing, and your choice meaning something. And the point is, what Jack achieves doesn't mean anything.

How is stopping a nuclear bomb from blowing up in Los Angeles not mean anything? (Not to mention the other feats he's accomplished)

And he lives constantly with the guilt of what he has done. Whether or not one should feel guilt for the things Jack must do, the fact is that it is an unchallenged premise throughout the whole series that what Jack is doing is morally wrong, or at least very 'grey'. And so even if we couldn't call it entirely malevolent, it is far from 'Romantic', in that Jack's actions and choices are always 'wrong' or at least 'not the best' or 'not good'.

According to whom?

So I guess, if you want to put it that way, Jack doesn't so much live in a malevolent universe, so much as an impotent one, which is roughly the same thing: namely that one's choices and actions ultimately have little meaning, no matter how much they might matter in the heat of the moment.

Again, how is stopping a nuclear bomb something that 'ultimately has little meaning'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Anyone else been catching Season 7?

I've only seen Seasons 1-4, (4 is my favorite so far), and I must say that I think Season 7 is going to be one of the best. I love President Taylor, btw.

So far I enjoy 7 very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always liked and watched 24.

As I recall (and I might not be remembering correctly, i.e., I may be over-romanticizing Jack) the first few seasons were unequivocally good. Meaning: Jack always did whatever he had to do to secure the good and the good was always a proper goal of the US government.

The last few seasons have gone down hill. The goals of the US government have become less and less legitimate and Jack has accepted more and more unearned guilt to point of self-sacrifice -- which has now reached its zenith in this season's plot.

The whole premise behind this season is one of pure altruism. The US government is pursuing a policy of altruistic self-sacrifice by committing soldiers and dollars to help some third world African tribal leader defeat another tribal tyrant. And when confronted with the choice of pulling our forces back or losing American civilian lives the president is genuinely conflicted. Apparently Jack has accepted this policy as legitimate and is willing to fight for it.

I'm not saying there is no value to be found here. Trying to root-out corruption and foreign infiltration of our government is a legitimate value for Jack to pursue and refusing to give-in to the demands of a terrorist is proper for the president to do. But all of this is overshadowed and diluted by a policy of altruism and unfortunately I can see some of Jack's methods will employ sacrifice of the good also.

The last couple of seasons have seen large American corporations portrayed as the villain and that will probably happen again this season. I would prepare yourself for a sour taste in your mouth and a heavy dose of altruism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole premise behind this season is one of pure altruism. The US government is pursuing a policy of altruistic self-sacrifice by committing soldiers and dollars to help some third world African tribal leader defeat another tribal tyrant. And when confronted with the choice of pulling our forces back or losing American civilian lives the president is genuinely conflicted. Apparently Jack has accepted this policy as legitimate and is willing to fight for it.

It's not entirely altruistic. The President has made it clear that for her to cave-in to the terrorists' demands would only encourage further attacks and end up with further loss of American lives in the future. As far as the policy to help Sengala, ending the genocide in Sengala would improve American security, because the dictator would not be able to fund terrorism using his country's resources (the diamond mines)

Unfortunately, she doesn't know what we know about Jack, so she thinks that the FBI has nothing to go on to get the CIP device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
...the problem with '24' is that it's an eternal lifeboat situation.

We aren't seeing the life that Jack lead, the decisions he made, that led him to where he is now. All we see, instead, are him making decisions, right now, with limited information, limited time, limited means. He's very often in some sort of lose/lose situation and it is very rarely that he even achieves any values - at best, he saves the day by violating the principles that give 'the day' any meaning, resulting in him having to go into hiding.

Jack lives in a malevolent Universe in which nothing he does can ever really make things right, and this is echoed in the politic side-stories, in which the best decisions anyone can make are semi-altruistic compromises with the devil.

But the story is called "24", not "A year in the life of Jack Bauer". And what makes Jack our boy is that what he does in the rest of year, prepares him to succeed in those critical hours that try men's souls.

Small quibble: Jack lives in a malevolent "society"...a belief in a malevolent "universe" is a psychological problem that Jack does not have, well, most days. He couldn't do what he does if he believed that what he did could not make the world a better place, and that ultimately everything was tears and sackcloth.

I do agree that it always does seem to end in a draw however. But that's Hollywood...

I'm about to finish the fourth of the Goodkind Sword of Truth novels, and the one thing you gotta like about Richard Rahl is that he always seems to end up at least one step ahead in the end. Of course, the enemy is just around the corner...

<Φ>aj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...