Did you ever notice how TV critics turn their “reviews”‘ into a political statement making outrageous demands of what is, simply, a fictional television program?
They’re paid to critique entertainment, yet they feel obligated to make political statements, which often are simply stupid.
That happened last Friday in the ostensible “review” of “24” in the San Francisco Chronicle by Tim Goodman. He’s a good writer, and I generally like his work. This being San Francisco, he doesn’t too often let his politics get in the way. But his time he was way off the mark, and it provided an insight into the left’s view of today’s politics.
I just wanted to womp him upside the head!
“24,” one of my two favorite TV shows – the other is “Damages” – debuted last night with a two-hour season kickoff. The second two hours, air tonight, Monday. As I write this, I’ve seen none of the four hours.
Clearly, I’m a fan, although I didn’t see any of the first season. I heard so much about it that I checked it out the second year, and I’ve seen every episode since! This is season seven – no shows last year because of the writers’ strike.
Yes, “24” is often outrageous and overdone, and for a while it got so mired in the personal romantic intrigues of the characters that it verged on soap opera. Then they got back to the theme: fight the enemy and protect this country.
Counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) was the guy, and while he cleverly muscled his way through the 24-hour day of drama each season, risking his life, saving others and subjecting the bad guys to whatever was needed to save the good guys, “24” was entertaining and fun to watch, filled with cliff-hangers that left hearts pounding.
People watch for different reasons. Maybe they like the real-time action or the characters, actors, conflict, violence, plot turns, writing, gadgets, camera techniques, simplicity of good versus evil or maybe – because it’s just good, entertaining, escapism!
But for Goodman, “24” is now out of date and out of step with 2009 because with the election of Barack Obama, a drama that focuses on bad guys and corruption and presidential assassinations and political cynicism and what he calls “the whole terrorist bogeyman conceit” is just “so 2007.”
You mean there’s no corruption in politics, no cynicism about government and no terrorism threat?
He calls the series a “victim of bad cultural and political timing,” though he does mention “24” featured black and female presidents.
I guess it’s not that out of step.
His point is that debuting just after 9/11, success was pure luck for the show and the fear of terrorism made “24” popular then – but we’re beyond that now.
Let’s see, the FBI reports there’ve been more threats against Obama than prior presidents, security at the inauguration will be the tightest ever and the threat of terrorism is higher now than it’s been in months with the Middle East threatening to go up in flames and threats against all of the West.
I guess Goodman doesn’t read the news pages of his own newspaper, but then it’s the Chronicle, after all.
It seems the interrogation methods used by Jack Bauer really get under Goodman’s skin. In fact, he calls the show the “poster series for Bush-era torture tactics in the win-at-all-costs battle against terrorism.”
Ooooh, Bush torture.
He says “24” justifies torture and that if it hadn’t gotten “so preposterous” … it might have come under real scrutiny rather than being dismissed as Hollywood fantasy run amok.”
What does that mean?
Scrutiny? By whom? Why?
What ever happened to creativity and free speech? What’s wrong with Hollywood fantasy?
Should fictional entertainment be investigated because of the plot intricacies?
Who would investigate? What enforcement power would they have over producers and writers?
Then again, that might not be so farfetched.
When one “24” plot line had Middle Eastern characters as the bad guys (where did the writers ever get that idea?) pressure by Muslim groups intimidated producers into having Kiefer Sutherland do a separate, stand-up, on-camera apology statement that there was no intent to categorize any group as being terrorists.
That was political correctness and political pressure run amok, but Goodman forgot to mention it – or perhaps he approves.
Is this the same entertainment writer who’s criticized movie censorship under the Hayes Code?
Is he suggesting films about incredible murder or spy plots should be investigated?
Is he deranged or dangerous or just a liberal acting out?
He’s ticked that this season, any “anti-torture message” is given lip service.
Apparently one of the characters who opposed such techniques decided they had their place and worked. He ridicules that.
Hey Tim – get real. Tough interrogation methods do work and are needed in crises. That’s why they’re used.
It’s interesting how critics ignore the liberal, politically correct politics that infest entertainment today. Reviewers should do their jobs and leave political commentary to others.
Then again, the fact they immerse their entertainment criticism in the soup of liberal politics only shows their disrespect for the intelligence of their readers.
Hey Tim, we’re brighter than you think. We see right through you! I’m sorry for you that you can’t just enjoy “24” for the good series it is.
Chill out and have fun; it’s just television.
