Tuesday, February 13, 2007

24 + 60 = Five disturbing questions raised by last night's television viewing

One: On 24, I'm sorry, but exactly where does Jack Bauer get the right to be snotty because someone broke under torture? Virtually his entire M.O. is based around the belief that everybody eventually breaks under torture, sooner or later.

And no, saying "Jack was tortured by the Chinese, and he didn't break!" wouldn't cover it. Not even allowing for the real-world reality that Jack is the hero of the series and frequently depicted as well-nigh superhuman.

Within the reality of the series, Jack is a trained, battle-hardened (to say the least) field agent. Morris was not.

Two: Within the reality of 24, how likely is it that a highly placed political operative would be shocked-shocked!-at the idea of a conspiracy against a President? Not even allowing for all the stuff that we as an audience are privy to, enough things have happened in the world of 24 that would be public knowledge.

A conspiracy in that world would be about as surprising as this mess of a war is in ours. Even to a layman. And it seems safe to assume that a man in Lennox's postion would be even more "in the loop."

Three: With Chloe's callous (and kind of out of character even for her) speech to Morris, followed by his returning to work less than two hours after having been tortured: Are we meant to infer that people who protest after being tortured are essentially whiny little crybabies?

I think we are.

Four: Speaking of Chloe, since when is she a demolitions expert? And-

Five: On Studio 60, is there any way to interpret last night's episode as anything other than: Feel sorry for the poor, overworked, overpaid writer that nobody loves, with a drug addiction? I'd like to believe that there is, but I haven't found it yet. If you have, write in.



No comments: