24 6.2: "Day 6: 7AM - 8AM"

Written by Manny Coto
Directed by Jon Cassar

In which Jack teams up with an unlikely ally to prevent another suicide bombing, while efforts to combat further terrorism put the president’s sister in a precarious position…

Status Report

(Note: This review covers the second hour of the Sunday night premiere; a previous review covered the first hour.)

As expected, this episode begins with Jack taking the first steps towards his true heroic form, despite the fact that he’s courting disaster by acting outside of the desires of CTU and the president. Even with his confidence shattered, Jack is the only one who seems to see the truth of a complex situation.

At the same time, the writers follow through on the promise of a more haunted Jack Bauer. In a critical scene, Jack finds himself interrogating one of the enemy, and while he starts the job without much hesitation, he falters. Immediately, the audience is reminded that Jack has been the victim of similar treatment for well over a year, and it’s impossible for him to overcome that in the space of days.

Jack’s struggle is likely to be an early highlight of the season, but it could be matched by Alexander Siddig’s portrayal of Assad. The writers of “24” have created an interesting connection to organizations like Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA in Northern Ireland. This is actually quite clever, because it highlights the fact that such a man (or movement) is completely absent from the “real world” scenario. Never mind that Assad is a man with a deeply violent past and present, making it very possible that his apparent goals are not what they seem.

This episode once again tries to strike a balance in the civil liberty/national security debate, and it generally works well. While the subplot involving Sandra Palmer (the sibling nobody discussed for a decade) is annoying, especially given the inclusion of yet another inter-office romance, it’s also necessary. After all, within the story itself, there are good arguments for and against handing over that information, given where it could lead. Sandra Palmer destroys the integrity of their side of the debate by destroying the information that she was required to provide. It’s a classic case of undermining one’s position through ill-conceived action.

On the other side of the debate, there are the clear actions of terrorism and fanaticism. Ahmed was initially shown as a young man conflicted, but by the end of this episode, his true colors are revealed. Much like the fourth season, the writers have given themselves an opportunity to explore the mindset of a terrorist. It remains to be seen if Ahmed will be around long enough for them to explore his rationale. Hopefully, the writers will avoid the ridiculous cliché that there is no rationale and that the terrorists are beyond reason; all humans who commit premeditated acts are acting out of reasoned motivation, however misguided or incorrect that reason may be.

The suicide bombing, foiled by Jack, was provocative for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it removes the remoteness of the exposition given in the newscasts. It’s one thing to say that terrorists coordinated suicide bombings in two other locations; it’s another to show people who barely escaped the same fate. It makes the audience think about the possibility of such a situation. In short, it strikes at the heart of the national security argument. Jack was there to save the day, but in two other cities, the damage was done. Doesn’t that justify the arguments of Tom Maddox?

If the writers remain true to form, the situation will continue to escalate until the debate becomes much more than an intellectual exercise. The plan to inter Muslims should remain on the table, and civil liberties should continue to be abused, so that the audience can consider whether or not a line has been crossed. Equally, the reality of Islamic terrorism should not be avoided. So far, the only complaint is that the civil liberty aspect has been hampered by cliché and silly plot devices.

One other weakness comes to mind. In the premiere episode, Chloe and Morris both broke protocol in a misguided attempt to save Jack. That decision was a horrible miscalculation, and it should have resulted in terrible legal and personal consequences. Instead, Chloe and Bill conspire to help Jack in this episode, despite the similar implications. That doesn’t quite track, and it makes CTU security and protocol even less impressive than in previous seasons.

Final Analysis

Overall, this episode continues to flesh out the central debate of civil liberty vs. national security, taking both arguments into certain extremes. While some aspects of this debate fall into realms of cliché, the writers are doing a better job of maintaining a balance between both sides than one might have expected. In some key aspects, the character exploration is better than anticipated.

Writing: 2/2
Acting: 2/2
Direction: 2/2
Style: 1/4

Final Rating: 7/10