A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post about an article in The New Yorker titled “Whatever it Takes” about the television show “24.” I won’t repeat what I said in that post. If you are interested, you can read my post here.
I mention that now because my post and the comments it elicited are the reason for this post. At the time I am writing this, there are actually only three comments. Each comment essentially says that “24″ is just a show. I happen to know and deeply respect the three people who commented, but I also happen to disagree with them on this particular topic. I am not saying it’s true of any of the people who commented, but to think that art cannot, or does not, have political ambitions is naïve at best and dangerous at worst. Consider the following works, each of which have clear political motivations.
Guernica by Picasso. It is one of my favorite paintings. I’m certain that most people are familiar with the painting and know that Picasso painted it in response to the Nazi fire bombing of the Basque town of the same name. There has been much speculation over the years about the possibly symbolic images found in the painting, particularly the depictions of a horse and a bull. But for all the symbolism and abstracts found throughout his paintings, I like to think that Picasso titled Guernica purposefully so that we do not mistake his indictment of the death and brutality suffered by civilians that he so skillfully, and beautifully, painted. Since Franco expressed desire to have the painting return to Spain, I like that Picasso intentionally poked a finger in the dictator’s eye by refusing to have the painting displayed in Spain until a republic was restored. His actions reinforce his political intent in creating the painting.
Schindler’s List, directed by Steven Spielberg. It’s not one of my favorite movies because it is so gut wrenching, but it is an important movie. If you have seen it, then you know that there are many brutal moments. The worst, for me, is the scene where Spielberg shows a pile of bodies and casually stacked in the pile is the body of a little girl. Her body is still wrapped in the red coat that she was seen wearing a few scenes before when she was full of life, apparently oblivious to the horrors that surrounded her. I’ve no idea if Spielberg pioneered the dramatic use of a color image in an otherwise all black and white film, but I’ve seen it copied since. Each time, I found it trite because I was reminded of Spielberg’s little girl in a red coat. It’s an image that I believe I will never forget.
“We are the World” by USA for Africa. When I think about politically motivated songs, I immediately think of many artists from Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger to Bob Dylan to U2 to Pearl Jam and Green Day. But “We are the World” also always comes to mind. It holds a somewhat special place in my memory because, way back in the 80s when 45s were still popular, it is one of the first singles I purchased. I’ve no idea how much money the supergroup made for famine relief in Ethiopia. But I do know that the song made me aware of the Ethiopian famine. In fact, it made me aware that the world into which I was born has some major problems. I don’t like that it took a group of spoiled pop singers to do that, but it’s true.
I chose my three examples intentionally because the political message associated with each of them is, unless you happen to be a tyrant, impossible to dispute. No one with a soul agrees that bombing of civilians, genocide, or needless starvation should occur.
Now, let’s turn to “24.” As with my examples above, the show has a political message. The general message of the show is that the brand of freedom enjoyed in the United States should be celebrated and protected. That message is one with which everyone agrees, at least those people who love freedom. In that regard, I agree with the political message of the show. I’m glad that I have never had to do it, but I am eternally grateful that others have protected, and continue to protect, the freedoms that I enjoy.
The issue that I have with the political message of “24″ is that it goes further and suggests that, not only should freedom be protected, it should be protected at all costs, no matter whose individual freedoms are endangered. I’ve never agreed with the reasoning by which it is okay to compromise an individual’s rights so long as it serves the greater good, and I don’t agree with it when fictionalized on “24.” When Jack Bauer chooses to put his own life in danger by, for instance, flying a ticking nuclear bomb from downtown Los Angeles to the middle of the Mojave desert, that is one thing. When he chooses to trample on others’ rights, that is something else entirely.
In the political climate we find ourselves in today – one of torture at Abu Graib, secret CIA prisons, and aggressive, preemptive wars – I think “24″ is incendiary. The world watches it and sees it as an extension and endorsement of the policy of protecting the United States at all costs, even when individual rights must be compromised. One of the things at the very core of our great country and one of the reasons that I love this country is that individual rights are protected, no matter what the individual happens to believe. We have a constitution and approximately 200 years of jurisprudence to insure those rights. I simply do not agree with any work of art that undermines those things.
The bottom line is that I’m not trying to convince anyone that they shouldn’t watch “24.” As I said in my previous post, I quit the show for reasons totally unrelated to politics. I just wanted to explain why I do not agree with the political message.