Actor: Nestor Serrano

You know him as: Pancho Martin (“Secretariat”), Navi Araz (“24″ Season 4), various police enforcement (“Bad Boys” 1 & 2, “The Negotiator”) and numerous other political/authoritative roles.

While I wasn’t the biggest fan of “Secretariat,” he made his role work. Cast opposite an underwhelming Diane Lane and an amazing John Malkovich, Serrano plays a rival horse trainer. Sure, you’re rooting for Malkovich and Lane’s steed. But without the role of Martin, and Serrano beautifully pulling the part off, you don’t care much about their motives. Serrano is great as a family movie’s villain despite the cheesy dialogue. Though he’s just around for the second half, Serrano helps turn a dwindling script into a great story.

What may be his other memorable role is his part in the Republican Show — er, I mean Fox’s “24.” Side-noting the obvious, “24″ was always the quintessential anti-PC action series, and a guy like me can applaud actors taking that risk. His character is a Middle Eastern patriarch ruthlessly coordinating a terrorist attack (see “All ‘24′ Villains”). As Araz, Serrano is downright scary, willing to kill his wife, son, or both to attack the United States. Serrano’s performances captures the essence of the enemy that the left hates characterizing.

The fact that Serrano embraces villainous characters exhibits courage in his capabilities; imagine how humble one must be to accept role after role not winning the day or getting the girl. Serrano delivers his dastardly acts superbly. No, his characters aren’t heroes going down in a blaze of glory; they’re the ones giving the audience a dose of schadenfreude.

USA Today:

The team behind 24 has a new take on terrorism in Homeland, premiering Sunday on Showtime (10 ET/PT).

The show revolves around two damaged protagonists: Nicholas Brody (Damian Lewis), a Marine sniper missing in Iraq since 2003 and presumed dead, then discovered as a prisoner of war; and CIA counterterrorism analyst Carrie Mathison (Claire Danes), who had been warned by an informant a POW was “turned” into a traitor and now suspects Brody is tied to an imminent attack. 

He’s welcomed home to suburban Washington as a hero and treated as a “poster boy” for the war, but he’s having problems readjusting to society and his family. She’s bipolar — she calls it a “mood disorder” — and is obsessively tracking Brody after a misstep that derailed her career as a case officer.

Howard Gordon, an executive producer of ['Homeland' and '24'], says that while 24 reflected an urgent, post-9/11 ethos, Homeland has the benefit of historical distance and takes a more skeptical view of the war on terror. “Should we be afraid of the same things we were afraid of 10 years ago? The world is more complex, and our understanding of it is more nuanced. And there’s a gray space of not knowing who the good guys and bad guys are.”

Full story here.

What I’ve always called the “blacklist” — though never in the original sense of the word — Surnow calls “political correctness taken to extremes,” which is also a very good description. Greengrass, after all, is no Republican but some have reported that his MLK script didn’t shy away from the shadier aspects of King’s personal life. For reasons we can all sympathize with, King’s family didn’t want that realized on-screen, but it’s still the kind of special treatment Cheney, Palin, and Margaret Thatcher are unlikely to receive in upcoming films about them. It’s also a new kind of self-imposed Production Code, this time with a list of left-wing sacred cows.

As promised, we talk a little bit about “24,”  and I would’ve loved to have talked more about that, along with a few other shows Surnow’s been involved with, specifically ”The Equalizer” – and one of my all-time favorites, “Nowhere Man,” but there are only so many hours in the day.

My thanks to Joel Surnow for his time and for fighting the good fight. The business of show is hard enough without being a rethuglican.

Big Hollywood: So if you were in a situation today where someone was to come to you and say, “I’ve got this 30 million dollar project on FDR or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama,” would you put yourself through this process again? 

Joel Surnow: Oh yeah, depending on what the story is.  Again, I keep making this point, we were solely interested in the Kennedys because Steve Kronish, the original writer, came to my house and told me the story of the Kennedys, which I had never heard before.  It was a great tragedy.  The details were amazing; the incidents were amazing.  The story was great. 

It didn’t start from “Jack Kennedy’s story needs to be told.”  It started with “look at all the rich material that has never been dramatized.”  So just to say FDR, it depends.  It depends on what aspect of his life.  The aspect of the Kennedy story that interested me, which was interesting and had nothing to do with history, per say, had to do with a relationship between a father and his son – and his three sons.  It was very Godfather-like.  And it was very much a personal story. 

And that’s sort of what attracted me to the material, not that we needed to see another depiction of Cuban Missile Crisis.  The conceit of the [miniseries] was forget about what you know, let’s pull away the veil of the iconography and just look at who these people were.  And look at all these fascinating triangles of people.  You know, Jack, Bobby, Joe, Jackie, and Ethel. And it just spun out, on and on. 

BH: You’d be willing to risk going through the same thing all over again, take on another liberal icon? 

JS:  Listen, if something’s good, if something has the potential to be of high quality — yes. The reason we got the access we did [with The Kennedys] is because my instincts told me this was a tremendous story, and Steve Kronish is a tremendous writer.  And with that, you get an actor like Tom Wilkinson [to come on board].  You don’t get Tom Wilkinson with just some schlock with a political agenda to press. 

BH: Absolutely not.

JS: So it’s about the material, not the politics. Frankly, I don’t think Ronald Reagan’s story is particularly dramatic. In the real world, I’ll take Reagan over other presidents, but is there a miniseries there?  I mean it’s okay; it’s just not the Kennedys.  The whole thing of a family just brings it to a whole different level.

BH: It also gives you a place to cut to…

JS: Right.  Absolutely. 

BH: You’re not on the same person all the time.  And I think that one of the reasons the Kennedys live on is not just because, “Oh, it’s Camelot,” and we’re all so enamored with that.  I like JFK, I thought he was a pretty good president, but I’m not enamored with the family.  But I’ve read a ton of books about him and the family and that’s because everything about the Kennedys is absolutely fascinating.

JS: It’s pretty crazy.

BH:  Okay, hypothetical time: You’re in the same situation with the same History Channel, and you end up with the exact same product as far as the miniseries, BUT you are a friend of Keith Olbermann and a liberal instead of a conservative — do you think History’s board would’ve dumped the series?

JS: No, not a chance.

BH: Even if the product was exactly the same, you think it would have aired?

JS: That’s the quote I’ve been saying forever. If this was a Tom Hanks/Steven Spielberg miniseries, it would have been shown at the White House, and it would have been considered a very patriotic reverential look at the Kennedys, which, by the way, it is.

BH:  From what I’ve seen, yeah, I couldn’t agree more. I think just contextually, it’s all there. And when I heard you were going to make this, I thought, “Okay,  we’re gonna get a contextually honest look at the Kennedys, and that’s going to be refreshing and  interesting.”  I think that’s what you created, and frankly, I wasn’t interested in a hit piece.

JS:  It’s not a valentine; it’s not a hit job.  It’s neither.  It’s a family drama.  The irony is that at the end of  episode six – which is the Cuban Missile Crisis — the last scene of the show is Jack Kennedy giving the speech that the crisis has been averted, and Jackie is sitting there watching it on TV, sitting on the floor with Caroline, who’s coloring in a coloring book and says something like, “What’s Daddy saying?”  And Jackie says, “Your daddy just saved the world,” which was a really powerful and big reverential, patriotic moment. 

Well, that little girl has grown up and probably is one of the people trying to stop the show [from airing], and from being seen by a whole new generation of people who can see some of the magnificence of the family.  It’s a bitter irony.

BH: It sure is. And no one I’ve read, and I’ve read as much as I can on this, no one has been able to point to one specific thing and say, “This is why History was right not to air the series.”  Instead, the message is, ” Surnow’s conservative, and we don’t want those people touching our icons.” 

JS: And, again, I want to make clear, I don’t have any problems with the Kennedy family trying to stop it, I just think the people who were in power, who did stop it, should have looked at it and watched it, and assured them. But that never happened.  It was just all done knee-jerk, with assumptions and labels and stuff like that.

BH:  I did see some reviews from those I call the Usual Suspects, those who do their usual thing.  But I haven’t even seen them say, “This was a hit job.”  I haven’t read anyone who said they thought you produced a partisan smear.

JS:  No, they just don’t like me because I’m conservative.  At this point in my career, I could probably do a show about a flower, and they would think it’s toxic and poisonous and needed to be stopped.  It’s the culture war 2011.

BH: And it’s ugly.

JS: It’s really ugly.

BH: You can go back to The Passion of the Christ before Mel Gibson said those terrible things — and before anybody had seen the movie, and look at what they did to him, the hell they put him through.  And not just in the entertainment and mainstream media. Look at what they put David Zucker through with An American Carol, and what they put Cyrus through with Path to 911, and now you.

JS:  Did you see they pulled this Martin Luther King project?

BH: The Paul Greengrass one?

JS: Yes.  And I don’t think that Paul Greengrass is particularly known as a conservative or not, but again, somebody doesn’t want something done; there’s lots of pressure brought onto producers and executives. We’re seeing something ugly right now, I think.

BH: Is “blacklist” too strong a word?  

JS: I don’t know if it’s a blacklist.  I work.  Cyrus works.  It’s political correctness taken to extremes, and there’s definitely discrimination. All you have to look at is the news business.  Fox News, in any other business, would have already had ten imitators for that audience, and they’ve had none.  There are people making decisions at the highest level that have more to do with Democrat and Republican than dollars and cents.  It’s out of whack.

BH: I think, too that what they’re doing is – and, again, this is just my opinion — but any time someone steps off what I call the liberal plantation, they just make their lives miserable. Even if the project gets made, it’s almost like a signal to everyone else saying, “If you try this, this is what’s going to happen to you.”

JS: Yeah, the word definitely goes into the pipeline.  And like you said, the usual suspects come out. In all fairness, there’s a conservative pipeline, as well. But I just don’t feel like they’re nearly as mean, or maybe as effective.  [Laughter].

BH: [Laughter].  Yeah, I think both.  We just want in on the debate, it’s certainly not about silencing the other side or stopping them. 

JS: Maybe it’s a mistake.  Maybe we should stop trying to debate.  The old saying, “If you argue with a fool, who’s a fool?” 

BH: But I think that’s part of their ploy, too. The siren song of “we’ll make your life easier if you lay down your arms.”  It’s a very tough choice… Especially when it is always such a knee-jerk thing, where everyone says this is Joel Surnow, he’s a friend to Rush Limbaugh, so we’re going to say the Kennedys is a smear job.

JS: Yeah, a friend of [Roger] Ailes and and Limbaugh, so he’s gotta be a bad guy. What’s disturbing, to me — and, again, I don’t take it personally. I’m not a bitter guy, I’m a very positive guy, and I am still very fortunate for the career I’ve had, even on The Kennedys, which is coming out great – but every article about me is “Joel Surnow, conservative.” I mean, who does that?  Does everyone need to be labeled?  “John F. Kennedy, womanizer.” Why is that so important of a distinction?  I’m also right-handed, you know, [laughter].

BH: And a producer…  [Laughter].

JS:  I always say you could just as easily go, “Emmy award-winning producer, who is a conservative friend of Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaugh — Joel Surnow.” 

BH: But they make your politics your identity.

JS: That’s the identity, that’s the label, and that’s just not real journalism.

BH: It’s also a way to separate you, immediately, from the people you want to work with.  A wedge.

JS:   And a warning.

BH: That’s a great way to put it.  And I think it’s intentional, too.

JS: Of course it is.  I mean, again, when you write a story, you don’t necessarily label someone just in the course of writing the story.

BH: Right.  As an example, I remember that in the first season of “24,” I think you guys went 13 episodes before you let us know that President Palmer was a Democrat.

JS: Right.

BH. Which is very, very smart because we were already involved with him.  We loved the guy; we admired him.  And then we’re told he’s a Democrat and it’s like, “Oh, who cares.  He’s a good guy.”  But if you had done that in episode one.

JS:  That’s a really good point. I even sort of regretted that – there was only one time that we ever mentioned party and even that was in an offhanded way. I wonder if it would have been better not to mention it at all, now that you say it.

BH:  I thought it was really well done. Because that’s kind of the way my mind works,  I understood what you were doing in waiting for that reveal.  But it was when I was watching the first season for the second time that I noticed it.  And as someone who actually analyzes this kind of stuff, I thought it was beautifully handled. 

I also thought it said something about you, because by that time, I knew your politics and thought, “This makes Joel Surnow look like a gentleman, like someone who’s open-minded. Here a conservative who created one of the most honorable and decent and patriotic characters on television and then graciously made him a Democrat.”

JS:  Maybe it would have been better if I had waited two years, and then when everybody loved him, said he was a Republican.

BH: Yeah.  [Laughter].

JS:  That would have been really good.[Laughter]

BH:  [Laughter].  That would have been great.

—–

“Kennedys” producer Joel Surnow talked to Entertainment Weekly:

EW: Didn’t historians vet the miniseries?

Surnow: “History has in-house historian Steve Gillan, who was there from the beginning and he vetted the script at every step at the way. After he was done, they brought in another historian named Robert Dallek who was highly respected and who has written books on the Kennedys. Historical accuracy is not the issue here. It has nothing to do with why this miniseries got canceled. Every script was approved. Every cut was approved. There was never any conversation like `we have a problem with this or that, let’s change it.’ This simply had to do with things other than what was said in the press release. In terms of trying to follow the story of historical accuracy, that’s not where this story lives. This story is about why a miniseries got canceled because of the political bent of some of the people involved. Or in this case one person’s involvement.

“If anyone has known my work for the last 25, 30 years, I’m not agenda-ized, I’m not even a political writer. I’m an agnostic filmmaker, I’m an agnostic writer. I go where the story is. It really felt like discrimination to me at the end of the day. I have no problem with the Kennedys. The Kennedys are absolutely in their right to want to protect their family as they see fit. It’s when the people who are inside our business, the ones making decisions who bend to that and cave to that, even when there is nothing valid about the objections being leveled against us, you have to start thinking about discrimination and censorship.”

Read the full interview here.

The History Channel responded with the usual-usual about the mini, unlike a love letter to Howard Zinn, not being right for the “Pawn Star” channel.

Posted above is the new trailer for the 8-part mini which airs April 3rd on the Reelz Channel.

The same Left whose standards are so low that opposition to ObamaCare, same-sex marriage, and the Ground Zero Mosque can only be driven by a “phobia” or “ist” — the same PC Left that hides ”silly” old Bugs Bunny cartoons and can’t broadcast a season of “24″ without including a patronizing Don’t Be Racist to Muslims PSA — sees the vicious portrayal of white Texans in “Machete” as nothing more than a silly goof. I guess it’s easy to convince yourself of that when your principles are based on an agenda as opposed to any sense of consistency or intellectual honesty.

The bottom line, however, is that whether Rodriguez likes it or not, this is still the United States of America, which means he has the right to make whatever film he wants and 20th Century-Fox has the same right to distribute it. But does that mean Texas taxpayers should foot part of the bill for a cinematic slandering of both their state and identity? [emphasis mine]

A tax incentives bill passed by the Texas Legislature in 2007 and strengthened in 2009 offers grants of five per cent to 17.5 per cent, based on the type of project and the amount of money spent in the state, the Austin Statesman reported.

But the law requires that productions meet certain standards. It also rules out incentives for movies that cast Texas in a negative light. ….

The film was released this weekend, meaning Rodriguez now has about two months to submit it to the Texas Film Commission.

The Commission’s head Bob Hudgins, has to decide whether to approve funds for the film, which was filmed in and around the Texan city of Austin.

He recently told Texan media that he was nervous about turning down the state’s most prolific film director.

However, he added: ‘I have to make my determination on the final version of the film. I have to be Switzerland about it.’

If Commissioner Hudgins is going to be “Switzerland about it”  then Commissioner Hudgins should always be “Switzerland about it.” Meaning, the awarding of “Machete” with taxpayer dollars is also the setting of a precedent that might come back to haunt both him and the state somewhere down the line:

Alamo Dawn:  Set in 2030, this affectionate nod to low-budget, paranoid, political actioner-thrillers like Red Dawn, finds Texas overrun and under the thumb of lazy, shiftless Mexicans who may not need no steenkin’ badges but do need their tequila and white women. Tired of being racially oppressed, a group of good ole’ boys militia up to yee-haw and gun down all those who brought the failed and corrupt policies of Mexico to America.

“This time they f*cked with the wrong Southerner.”

If Commissioner Hudgins is going to force Texas taxpayers to foot the bill for “Machete” he had better ask himself what he would do if a bunch of rich, white “rednecks” got $30 million together to produce, market and self-distribute a “Bizarro-Machete.”

Could happen, right?

After all, we are a bunch of racists.

In the best drama category, the highly-acclaimed and perennial winner “Mad Men” will be facing some mildly tough competition. It will be up against HBO’s “True Blood,” Showtime’s “Dexter,” AMC’s “Breaking Bad,” ABC’s “Lost,” and CBS’ “The Good Wife.” Even though “Lost” just aired its final season, many expect that “Mad Men” will walk away with its third consecutive best drama award. Several of last year’s nominees for this category were snubbed this year (“House,” “Big Love,” and “Damages”) along with at least one departing show that had previously won this competition (“24”).   

In the best comedy category, there is a bit more competition for the other perennial winner “30 Rock.” “30 Rock,”,like “Mad Men,” has won its category’s top award since it premiered and already has three Emmy awards for best comedy. However, this year’s competition seems more exciting with three new series receiving nominations (“Nurse Jackie,” “Glee,” and “Modern Family”) along with “The Office” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” Many television critics expect either freshman comedy “Glee” or “Modern Family” will take home the big award and end “Rock’s” winning streak but “30 Rock” still has a chance for another repeat win.

In terms of the lead acting categories for dramas, two new nominees have thrown more tough competition into the mix. I’ve been outspoken about my affection for the drama “Friday Night Lights” so I was excited to see Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton receive nominations for lead actor and actress in a drama. Chandler faces off against “Mad Men’s” Jon Hamm, “House’s” Hugh Laurie, “Dexter’s” Michael C. Hall, “Breaking Bad’s” Bryan Cranston, and “Lost’s” Matthew Fox. I haven’t seen all of the performances nominated but from my knowledge of the shows themselves, Chandler’s character seems to be the most realistic and down-to-earth one in the group and it would be nice if he was celebrated for his stellar work (although I have heard great things about Cranston’s performance on “Bad”).

In the lead actress in a drama category, there seems to be even stiffer competition and several of the actresses play extremely relatable and realistic characters. Britton will be facing off against “Mad Men’s” January Jones, “The Closer’s” Kyra Sedgwick, “Law and Order: Special Victim Unit’s” Mariska Hargitay, “Damages’” Glenn Close, and “The Good Wife’s” Julianna Margulies. Close has won this award for the past two years but some critics have suggested that Margulies will likely win for her role. (I’m rooting for Britton but I would be excited over a Margulies win as well.)

The lead acting nominations in the comedy categories showcase a wide variety of performances highlighting some well-known performers and a few welcome newcomers. Alec Baldwin (who has won for his performance on “30 Rock” for the past two years) will face “Curb Your Enthusiasm’s” Larry David, “Monk’s” Tony Shalhoub, “The Office’s” Steve Carell, “Glee’s” Matthew Morrison, and “The Big Bang Theory’s” Jim Parsons. I have seen each of these actors in their respective roles and it seems like Parsons should have a strong chance in this category for his vibrant portrayal of Sheldon Cooper.

The lead actress in a comedy category features some several comedic actresses who have been recognized in the past. Toni Collette (“United States of Tara”) won in this category last year. The previous year, Tina Fey won for her role on “30 Rock.”  Additionally, Julia Louis-Dreyfus (who was nominated for “The New Adventures of Old Christine” this year) previously won for her work on “Seinfeld.” The remaining nominees in this category are “Park and Recreation’s” Amy Poehler, “Nurse Jackie’s” Edie Falco and “Glee’s” Lea Michele. This category could go to Collette or Fey but I have read some positive stuff about Falco’s performance so she could also pull a win out here.

The supporting actor in a drama category has some strong competition as well. “Mad Men’s” John Slattery will be facing “Damage’s” Martin Short, “Breaking Bad’s” Aaron Paul, “Lost’s” Terry O’ Quinn, “Men of a Certain Age’s” Andre Braugher, and “Lost’s” Michael Emerson. The supporting actress nominees for a drama include “Mad Men’s” Christina Hendricks, “Damages’” Rose Byrne, “The Good Wife’s” Archie Panjabi, “Burn Notice’s” Sharon Gless, “Mad Men’s” Elisabeth Moss, and “The Good Wife’s” Christine Baranski. There are a lot of strong performances in these two categories so both will be very competitive and hard to predict.

Another category that will likely not be hard to predict is best supporting actress in a comedy. In that category, “Glee’s” Jane Lynch will be going up against five other actresses who will likely lose to the villainous cheerleading coach. However, if this category has an upset, Lynch could lose to “30 Rock’s” Jane Krakowski, “Saturday Night Live’s” Kristen Wiig, “Modern Family’s” Sofia Vergara, “Modern Family’s” Julie Bowen, or “Two and a Half Men’s” Holland Taylor. In the supporting actor in a comedy category, “Modern Family’s” Jesse Tyler Ferguson will face “Glee’s” Chris Colfer, “Two and a Half Men’s” Jon Cryer, “Modern Family’s” Ty Burrell, “Modern Family’s” Eric Stonestreet, and “How I Met your Mother’s” Neil Patrick Harris. Like my support for Parsons, I would be really excited if Neil Patrick Harris won for the uniquely funny character he has brought to life.

Overall, with Jimmy Fallon hosting the Emmys, it should be a fun night to celebrate television. Although some past winners will likely win major awards, there will likely be some surprises and there could be a few great acceptance speeches as well.

I can’t wait to watch.

The Good: Two of the best things about this year’s nominations were Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton, who were nominated for outstanding lead actor and outstanding lead actress in a drama series for their work on “Friday Night Lights.” These actors have been in their respective roles for four years but have never received the recognition they deserved for their strong performances. “FNL” was also recognized in several other categories with nominations for  “Outstanding Casting for a Drama Series” and “Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series.” That latter nomination was specifically for a heartbreaking episode about a former quarterback coming to grips with his father’s death in Iraq.

In addition to recognizing the strong talent of often neglected shows, the nominations also brought more attention to some critically-acclaimed new programs. I still haven’t watched ABC’s new comedy hit “Modern Family” but in its first season, the show has received numerous Emmy nominations to go along with the rave reviews it received when it premiered. In fact, out of the twelve nominations for outstanding supporting actor and outstanding supporting actress in a comedy series, “Modern Family” captured five of them in addition to other major nominations, including a best comedy nod. I am looking forward to checking this show out when it comes to DVD. 

A couple of other freshman shows received some support from Emmy.  “The Good Wife” received several high profile and well-deserved nominations, including a nod for outstanding drama series. The musical comedy “Glee” also received a lot of love, including a nomination for outstanding comedy series and a supporting actress nomination for Jane Lynch, who many predict will take home that award.

The Bad: I haven’t seen all of the programs nominated but I was disappointed that “24” received so few nominations in its final season. This season of “24” was clearly not its best but the show deserved some recognition for strong performers like Kiefer Sutherland. Even in its final season, the show had some great thrills this year and a strong series finale.

For all of my excitement over the “Friday Night Lights” nominations, I am disappointed that the show was not nominated for best drama. Also, like some other critics, I am disappointed that FNL’s Zach Gilford, who has been great on the show since it started, was not nominated. Gilford played the former quarterback accepting the death of his father in the “FNL” episode that was nominated for best writing.

Also, I was a little disappointed to see so many nominations for “You Don’t Know Jack,” a disappointing HBO film about Jack Kevorkian. “You Don’t Know Jack” received a whopping fifteen Emmy nominations. Although the movie did feature some solid performances, the movie failed to take an in-depth look at Jack Kevorkian and did not deserve so much attention.

The Controversial: This year, the Emmy nominations did create some interesting controversies. For one, David Letterman’s “Late Show” failed to earn an Emmy nomination for best variety show, but the man who attempted to blackmail Letterman garned one for an unrelated television project. Additionally, “The (short-lived) Tonight Show with Conan O’ Brien” received a nomination for outstanding variety, music or comedy series but “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” failed to garner one. (If O’Brien’s show wins, that acceptance speech will likely be one of the highlights of the evening).

However, the most controversial nomination should be the Emmy nomination for the politically incorrect South Park episodes that Comedy Central censored. As Washington Post columnist Lisa de Moraes wrote, the episodes that “merited consideration for Outstanding Animated Program… were censored because Comedy Central would not show what viewers were led to believe was an image of Muhammad disguised in a bear costume — but which in fact turned out to be St. Nicholas.” Moraes noted that “the show’s creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, publicly derided the versions of the censored episodes that were telecast, saying Comedy Central had wrecked them.” So the show is being celebrated even though Comedy Central was incapable of standing up for the show’s freedom of speech.

If the good, the bad and the controversial aspects of the Emmy nominations are not enough to make you want to tune in to the Emmy awards, there is an added competition that might make it worthwhile.

Betty White’s famous Snickers commercial will be going up against the charming Old Spice guy commercial in the outstanding commercial category.

If that’s not enough to make you want to tune in, I’m not sure what is.

That’s a shame, because Unthinkable, a ripped from the headlines suspense thriller, starring Samuel L. Jackson, Carrie-Ann Moss, Michael Sheen and Brendan Routh, asks the sorts of questions we should be asking in our era of terror. It has all the hallmarks of an excellent 24 episode, save one — the threat seems far too real and it isn’t clear that the FBI is tough enough to save us.

—–

The movie opens to grainy footage of Sheen in a warehouse.  The camera flickers on, Sheen stammers something, grows dissatisfied and the he turns the camera off. At first blush, these seem like outtakes, until he regains himself. “In the name of Allah, the merciful, and his Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, my name is Yousef Atta Mohammed. My former name is Stephen Arthur Younger.”

It’s a scene we’ve seen before – on the news, but never from Hollywood. Younger is all American: ex-military, a Muslim convert, and a nuclear weapons specialist, who has placed three nuclear weapons in three American cities. Paid by Iran to smuggle fissionable material out of Russia, he went rogue, surfacing once more in America where he allowed himself to be captured. He is our very worst fear, a fear which seems all too plausible after Ft. Hood.

If Younger is our worst fear, then careerist FBI Agent Helen Brody (Moss) is his greatest enabler and black ops interrogator “H” (Samuel L. Jackson) our best hope. Tasked to find the three bombs, Brody and H lead an interrogation team to get Younger to talk. Their approaches couldn’t be more different. To get to the truth, H tortures him, while Brody coddles him, revealing, at last, America’s schizophrenic position on torture and self-preservation. This is not a conflict with radical Islam; it is a conflict over to what extents we will preserve our civilization against its most nihilistic enemies.

**MAJOR SPOILERS**

Which, as H reminds us, is not the terrorist, but Agent Brody. She has the kind of impeccable credentials that the ACLU would love for every FBI agent to have. She’s a careerist Harvard Law graduate who chose career over family. She exudes multiculturalism, telling Younger that she admires the Koran, and that, after one torture session, he is “one of the bravest men I know.”

Consistently, she waxes about the Geneva Convention, the illegality of it all, and she, along with her boss, promise that when it is all over with, they’ll bring a civil rights prosecution against H and the government for torturing a guy who wants to kill millions of Americans. Indeed, her first encounter with Younger, she tells him that his “situation here is illegal” and that she’s “going to get you out of here so you can talk.”

In lines that could have been written by Andrew Sullivan, Moss tells him that he’s not “going to get any “information” anyways, “You do this and he’ll say anything and none of it will be true. Physical torture doesn’t work.”

To which H, dismantling the fashionable “torture-doesn’t-work” lie, replies, “So I guess that’s why they have been using it since the beginning of human history, huh? For fun?”

H tells her, “It’s not about the enemy. It’s about us. Our weakness. We’re on the losing side, Helen. We’re afraid, they are not. We have doubt, they believe.” He asks her how many lives our values have cost. Later, she tells him that everyone wants to be free, only to have H rebut, that not everyone wants to be free.

How right he is.

That, unfortunately, is the closest the film gets to seriously considering the morality of torture or our tepid response to evil.

The film doesn’t seriously consider that H might be doing good. He is, instead, seen as something of a necessary evil, sanctioned by the government but never applauded for being essential. At times, he even accepts this role, easily, telling Younger that there is no good in the world, only defeat and victory. As the clock ticks down and the bombs seem ready to go off, H asks the only decent person in the room – Brody – if he can torture Younger’s children to find the location of a probable fourth bomb.

She tells him emphatically, “We can’t do this. We’re f—ing humans. Let the bomb go off!” H nods and the final scene shows the bomb counting down to zero and then fading to black.

Never has a better argument been made for the essential nihilism of the Left. They tell us, “We’re so civilized that we’re willing to let our civilization go up in a mushroom cloud.” And go up in smoke it will.

In terms of their plots, “24” and “Lost” have very little in common. “24,” which ran for eight years on Fox, was about a counter-terrorism agent named Jack Bauer. Each episode detailed an hour in the life of Bauer and his work fighting against terrorists and threats to the United States. “Lost,” on the other hand, ran for six years on ABC and told the story of a group of plane crash survivors who land on a strange and mysterious island and had to learn to live on that island while dealing with a “smoke monster” and a group of mysterious individuals on the island’s other side.

Admittedly, I have not seen every episode of “Lost” (I recently watched the first few seasons  and the sixth season when it aired), and I likely missed a few random episodes of “24″ along the way, but it only takes an episode or two of each program for a viewer to realize that these shows are not typical network fare. Firstly, both addressed issues that are seldom brought up on network television. This USA Today article about “Lost” in mid-May noted:

“Lost covered topics not usually seen on series TV, with an array of references from the Casmir effect in physics to philosophers both famous, including John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and more obscure, such as Jeremy Bentham.”

“Lost” also dealt with questions of faith, destiny, and redemption and was not afraid to answer them. On the other hand, “24” dealt with the topic of counter-terrorism in this country. It had its own share of controversies (including the choice of villains) but it also added to the debate about torture and harsh interrogation techniques — a debate that will likely continue with references to “24.”

Neither of these popular shows was built as a typical episodic program, which is one of the best things about them. Both relied and celebrated viewer loyalty. With other shows, such as “CSI” or “Law & Order,” fans could watch on a casual basis. Many of the episodes are self-contained and formulaic. I have nothing against that format, but I applaud shows that decide to pursue a more unique course, as well.

With shows like “24” and “Lost,” watching an episode here or there was difficult. With “Lost,”  there were clues and foreshadowing in varying episodes and a lot of the episodes and story-lines built off of one another. For instance, it’s difficult to fully understand John Locke, one of the lead characters, without being aware of his complete back-story. You had to watch a lot of episodes to see what happened to Locke before he crashed on the island. On the other hand, each season of “24” was a day in the life of its protagonist. Each episode built on the previous one, which in turn continued the excitement throughout the season. Missing an episode might mean that a viewer missed a resolution to a previously presented conflict or the death of a major character.

The willingness to kill off major characters was also an exciting part of both programs. With a lot of network shows, the same characters (both in major and minor roles) remain for long periods. However, both “24” and “Lost” were willing to write off certain characters to serve the purpose of the story and because of that there were a lot of casualties (some welcome, but many unwelcome). These deaths were sometimes shocking and showed viewers that the stories wouldn’t be predictable thanks to writers willing to make tough choices.  

This is not the only similarity between the two. Both were also critically acclaimed and both won a Best Drama Emmy during their runs. They also featured large casts.

Finally, both should serve as encouraging signs that television can and should take risks and find success outside of normal formats. So let’s hope that this summer season has a few surprises on the schedule so we know the networks are still willing to take risks for the sake of  a satisfying story.

Before the series finale of “24” began, Kiefer Sutherland (a.k.a Jack Bauer) appeared on the Fox network and thanked the show’s audience for their support of the long-running program. After eight seasons (eight days in the show’s life), “24” was cancelled earlier this year, although the show will likely be made into a movie. However, after so many great seasons and an emotionally satisfying conclusion, it should be the audience thanking both Kiefer Sutherland and his alter ego.

As the series finale began, the president of the United States, Allison Taylor (Cherry Jones), was preparing to have a historic peace agreement signed. However, the idealistic Taylor had been forced to make numerous ethical compromises in order to get the agreement signed and then discovers that Russia’s leader had planned the assassination of a Middle Eastern leader who was set to sign the agreement. Even knowing that, Taylor continued to obsessively pursue the treaty, which would likely become a major part of her presidential legacy.

Her Shakespearean fall continued throughout and in one unbelievably good finale scene, she even threatened to brutally attack another country if the leader of that nation (the widow of that country’s president, who had been killed only hours before) revealed the truth about Russia’s involvement in the assassination. This was a shocking turn of events as this once hopeful president suddenly made horrific decisions in order to achieve “peace.”

Taylor’s fall from idealism was only one part of the jam-packed finale. As Taylor was fighting for her treaty, Jack Bauer was seeking vengeance against those who had killed Renee Walker (Annie Wersching), a former work associate and love interest of his who was assassinated. In the meantime, disgraced former president Charles Logan (Gregory Itzin) was trying to find redemption in the public eye by helping President Taylor get her important peace treaty signed. Throughout the last few episodes, Logan has been pushing President Taylor to make grievous errors in her pursuit of the agreement.

The finale was full of great twists and turns. From seeing how far President Taylor was willing to go in pursuit of the agreement to seeing how close Bauer came to causing a war because of his need for vengeance, this show continued to excite and surprise the audience even in its closing hours.

Some criticism, including on this blog, has been leveled against the show’s writers for pushing Jack Bauer into extremely dark territory and surprising the audience by Bauer’s lust for vengeance. I can appreciate those criticisms and I can understand that on numerous occasions Bauer has crossed ethical lines. However, Bauer has been an extremely flawed character for a long time and he has been willing to do things that are immoral and wrong. In the end, and as is noted in the finale, he will have to eventually face the consequences of what he has done and even though we, the audience, can support his mission of saving millions of lives, we should also be able to understand that Bauer is not a perfect human being. He is a hero, but he has also done cruel things.     

The first hour-plus of  the finale focused on the action and the excitement that the show did so well.  However, in the end, it was not the action or the excitement that closed things out. Instead the focus was on politics and relationships. President Taylor, who was eventually able to manage the cover-up that she supported, was forced to decide what the “peace” agreement was worth to her. Her choice  may have been presented in a clichéd way, but it was a strong way to end her character’s arc.

Additionally, the best part was in the closing sequence between Jack Bauer and Chloe O’Brian (Mary Lynn  Rajskub), one of Bauer’s former CTU colleagues. Throughout the past few seasons, O’Brian and Bauer have been worthy allies working against terrorist threats and fighting against people who wish to do this country harm. Instead of an action-packed few final moments, the show decided to focus on this strong relationship and show what they meant to each other. The final few lines of dialogue avoided blatant sentimentality to simply show these characters saying goodbye.

As these characters were saying their respective goodbyes and acknowledging their longtime support for one another, the audience was saying goodbye to them and this fantastic show…until it moves to the big screen.