Political Culture: “Jericho” Walls Come Tumbling Down … Again

“It’s not a country, it’s a company.”

The most politically daring drama on network television comes to a likely end next Tuesday – for a second time. The saga of Jericho’s cancellation and resurrection last year was a great tale of people-powered programming; unfortunately, while the show’s fans could shower 20 tons of nuts on the short-sighted corporate stooges at CBS and save the show for awhile, it appears they didn’t turn up in enough numbers this winter to save the show from another early demise.

The bomb that started it allCBS could still change its mind — Jericho’s producers, hoping against hope even though the network renewed the show for merely a seven-episode run, filmed both a cliffhanger episode and a series-ender for next week’s slot. Still, as much as I’ll miss Jericho if it’s not on the fall schedule, it’s probably best if CBS and exec producers Carol Barbee and Jon Turteltaub cut the cord right here. Frankly, I can’t imagine corporate America allowing such an anti-establishment endeavor to continue on government-owned airwaves much longer.

Jericho started out last season as a relatively straightforward post-apocalyptic serial featuring surprisingly intricate and compelling family drama, interspersed with the requisite violence and suspense to keep viewers tuning in. Though its plotlines launched with a nuclear attack that took out 23 U.S. cities, leaving small-town Jericho, Kansas, cut off from the outside world, the show tempered its stream of horrors – radioactive fallout; an ongoing terrorist conspiracy; shortages of food, power and medical supplies; societal chaos; even warfare against a neighboring town – with inspiration, as a heartland community pulled itself up by its bootstraps to confront these new challenges. Post-Katrina New Orleans seemed to be the guiding metaphor during that first season, with only a few elements overtly tying Jericho’s plot to other real-life events – most prominently the ominous presence of a Blackwater-like mercenary/“military contractor” force that toured from town to town, enforcing order and pillaging the countryside in ruthless fashion (with no accountability, of course).

In case you’ve never seen a second of Jericho, this promotional video for the season-two opener offers a taste of what you’ve missed (if you can get past the talking peanut):

This season, however – with only seven episodes to work with, and the knowledge that renewal wasn’t likely to strike twice – Jericho’s producers and writers have turned their reprieve (and the free rein allowed by CBS) into an opportunity to make a Big Statement about the Bush administration’s military-industrial complex and, specifically, its monumental screw-ups in Iraq. To begin the season, the town of Jericho was invaded and occupied by an army attached to a provisional government based in Cheyenne, Wyoming (home state of a certain current Vice President); that army brought with it a monolithic, Halliburton-style contractor called Jennings & Rall to take over the provision of basic services and to manage the town’s interaction with Cheyenne. Soon the commander of the mercenary force from Season One was brought in to take over Jericho’s security; his corruption and brutality – combined with the revelation that the Cheyenne government is in fact a wholly-owned subsidiary of Jennings & Rall, whose executives apparently fomented the nuclear attacks in order to accrue more power for themselves – eventually provoked the town’s residents into open, violent rebellion.

Ashley Scott & Skeet UlrichAnd just to drive the point home, in this week’s episode the show’s principal character (played by Skeet Ulrich) was tortured by the occupying army in its search for other insurgents. (Oh, I’m sorry; he was subjected to “enhanced interrogation.”) No waterboarding, just a few days of starvation and sleep deprivation in a Hogan’s Heroes-esque “ve have vays off making you talk” scenario. Except not really funny.

As you might imagine, the amount of exposition on this show is remarkable – everybody’s got a lot of ’splaining to do. This season the writers have jettisoned most of the family-oriented subplots and numerous secondary characters, emphasizing the action (and the unfolding conspiracy) as they barrel toward next week’s finale. I have no inside skinny, no spoiler alerts to offer, unfortunately; from the looks of the previews, there will be a lot of fighter-jet action and maybe (just maybe) another nuclear blast. That would wrap things up neatly, now wouldn’t it?

Jericho’s failure to relaunch this season, ratings-wise, is (of course) evidence of the downside of network television’s recent trend toward serial dramas. (That trend likely will complete its course when Lost concludes sometime in the spring of 2010.) However, the lack of attention paid to Jericho this winter – and the attendant absence of right-wing uproar over the show’s recent Iraq-bashing – reflects the real-life war’s larger disappearance from our television screens over the past six months, as our soldiers’ casualty rate has dropped (due, depending on which version of the “truth” you believe, to the surge’s “success” or the near-completion of ethnic cleansing in Iraq).

Americans’ attention has turned to more pressing concerns, such as the economy, the presidential race, and (on Tuesdays) that adorable little chipmunk-faced boy on Idol. Meanwhile, the Democrats in Congress continue to ride out the last excruciating months of the Bush nightmare, hoping that a new and left-leaning administration will save the world next year if they just stay out of the spotlight and don’t rile up the conservative base with anything as trivial as, say, Armed Services Committee oversight hearings (paging Senator Clinton…Senator Clinton? Bueller? Bueller?).

As a result, the only places you hear the word “Halliburton” anymore are in a recent blink-and-you-missed-it mention of the contaminated water its KBR subsidiary has been providing to our soldiers… or, if you’re a Jericho viewer, in your own head as you watch the fictional Jennings & Rall run roughshod over a small town and a nation. In the absence of a post-Bush “truth and reconciliation” process that really ought to, but never will happen, the long view of history will be required to answer all the questions that have arisen out of the Bush war machine. One thing is certain, however, and that is that history will not look kindly on the nexus between Dick Cheney’s tenure as Halliburton CEO, Halliburton/KBR’s twin focuses on oil and military-services contracting, and the Bush/Cheney administration’s decision to invade oil-rich Iraq based on a suitcase full of lies and a stack of lucrative contracts that pretty much all went to…Halliburton.

Lennie James & Skeet UlrichWhat Jericho has done over these past seven weeks is take Bush/Cheney-era corporatized warfare to its fantastical-yet-logical extreme. The show’s barely noticed achievement will go down as little more than a footnote in television history, and even less than a footnote in the narrative of this god-forsaken war. However, its lessons are out there, waiting to be learned, every Monday night on Sci Fi Channel. In the meantime, even if you’ve never watched before, tune in next Tuesday at 10 p.m. Eastern; the season/series finale should be a ripping good show.

*****

One brief additional note: In a comment posted this past Monday below Py Korry’s excellent analysis of political wedge issues, I rashly suggested that Barack Obama needed to have a “Sister Souljah” moment in his speech the next day – that he needed to cut all ties to Rev. Wright, and even assert that key moments in Obama’s own life had been somehow “tainted” by Wright’s participation in them.

Obama, of course, did almost exactly the opposite, and went on to give the most extraordinary, honest, and (hopefully) healing political speech in at least a generation. In doing so, he proved himself a far, far better man than I. If you have not yet watched the entire speech, please take some time to do so; it may be the most worthwhile 37 minutes you spend this week. Don’t rely on the snippets offered on the TV news; as far as I’m concerned, this was a civics lesson that should be required viewing in every school and household for decades to come.

Tags: , ,

  • I thought Obama's speech was pretty darned amazing myself, but I'm much more cynical than you. First, I don't think it will quell a rising anti-Obama movement that wanted him to bitchslap his reverend. Second, if Obama gets the nomination, expect this to become Swiftboat 2008 and the quality and import of the speech will be reduced to less than a soundbite.
  • I pray you're wrong, Dunphy.
  • I hope I'm wrong too. If it comes to pass, and if 100 more years in Iraq is worth that much to the Republicans, I give up.
  • JonCummings
    Me, too. I will say one thing, which is that Obama seems to have learned the lessons from John Kerry's experience, and never seems to let any accusation/criticism go unanswered within a single news cycle.

    Apart from that, it seems the only thing for him to do is ride this out and see where things stand in a couple of weeks. I'm having a seriously hard time believing this will still be a big story in the summer or fall--and anyone who drifts away from him on this issue probably would have found some other reason to do it anyway before November.

    You know what I found fascinating? The episode of the HBO series In Treatment that aired on Tuesday night (right after Obama's speech) featured an elderly African-American man going on a brief tirade about how he'll never be able to get over all the injustices this country has visited on blacks people.

    I tend to believe that, as with many things related to Obama's candidacy, this will likely boil down to a generational issue--both in terms of Wright's perspective vs. Obama's, and in terms of the way voters respond to all these events. I don't find that fact terribly encouraging for his electoral prospects, considering that seniors vote in much larger numbers than anyone else, but I do think that younger voters will cast this issue aside rather quickly.
  • I sincerely hope so.

    Look, we all know Kerry was a piss-poor candidate and he ran his campaign like he was giving his lunch money away. But the Swiftboaters took a non-starter and turned it into a full blown controversy. Obama does indeed try to counter fast and not let things fester quietly, but I'll be disappointed if I start seeing those particular tactics employed too liberally.
  • JonCummings
    Agreed--but there's a huge difference between launching attacks and parrying them. Another thing Obama will have this summer, which Kerry didn't have when it became necessary to defend against the Swiftfuckers, is OODLES of money. Kerry was broke all summer; Obama won't have that problem.
  • Elaine
    I steadfastly refuse to participate in any of the political posts, but just having seen the headline in my rss feed, I thought I'd chime in that I'll be hearing Dreams So Real's "Rough Night in Jericho" for the rest of the day. That is all. :-)

    p.s. Cool song, so I'm okay with this.
  • I read the whole Obama speech. A tremendous number of questions are left unanswered. Did Obama ever talk to this father-figure/mentor about his nutty ideas, about white people trying to kill off blacks with the bio-weapon of AIDS? I believe Obama when he says he didn't hear the pastor say these things in church. Does that mean he really doesn't attend church that often? What about the possibility of his daughters sitting there and listening to this skewed view of the world?

    There is ample evidence that Obama knew about the Reverend's racist views, but still put him on the Obama team. I suppose Obama did the best he could by not totally rejecting the man. Because it would be impossible for him to do so, and -- as you point out -- actually dishonest to do so.

    McCain now leads either Hillary or Obama in the latest polls. Now that the rest of America has seen the kind of hate speech coming out of black pulpits and the way Obama and the Democrats try to excuse it, very real and legitimate doubts are moving people to favor experience and proven grace under pressure over blind hope for questionable change.

    And although Obama made a few Reaganesque noises in the speech and speaks of a coming together, in the end (of the speech) it still came down to the same old statist prescriptions that about half of us absolutely do not want. In the end there can be no unity. One or the other side must convince enough of those in the middle to help them defeat their opponents, and the minority will have to grit their teeth and bear it.

    Finally, just a footnote here on a previous topic, Jon. Did you read Mamet's recent essay about why he is no longer a "brain-dead liberal"? It seems that his play November actually says (or Mamet intended it to say) something a bit different than what you read into it. One of the choicer quotes:

    "I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

    "Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh."

    Or perhaps I misread your original reading. I don't think so. Anyway, my appreciation for Mamet's work, which was very high before, will be even greater now. He has decided to move toward the light. Hallelujah!
  • JonCummings
    Thanks for the recitation of Sean Hannity talking points. I can get that on Faux News. As for Mamet, I don't see how his views on Kennedy or liberalism detract from the very direct allusions to the Bush administration that run rampant through November.

    And I'm glad to hear Mamet say he's not a "brain-dead liberal." Neither am I; I consider myself to be a pretty goddamn smart liberal, thank you very much.
  • Honestly, who really cares that Mamet (or any celeb, for that matter) decides that he or she has had enough of a political party. From the quote above, it seems Mamet is just tired of politics.

    Jon, thanks for the great review of Jericho. I've been stuck in a rut when it comes to TV shows, but now it looks like I've missed a good one.
  • Old_Davy
    I didn't begin to watch Jericho until two weeks ago. I had the opportunity to catch up on it when a co-worker loaned me her copy of the first season on DVD. I was so captivated by it, I finished all of season one in a couple of days and then I watched all of season 2 online so I would be up to speed. Knowing that next week's episode may be the last is very sad. It is a brilliant show, although I do wish the writers had stuck to the original concept of a town bringing itself back up on it's feet after a devastating disaster (Katrina-like story line that ran through season 1) instead of the government-conspiracy-theory (the Iraq War-like story line in season 2). This has nothing to do with my personal political views, I just thought the first season was more inspirational and therefore better entertainment. If the end of the show is really next week, I have no idea how they're going to wrap up all the loose ends in one episode.

    The thing that is most bittersweet about the show is how they kill off characters. Just when you really get to care about a character, they get killed off. This is frustrating as entertainment, but as a social commentary, it is a brilliant and realistic point.

    Now I'm no political junkie, but I consider myself to be well-informed. Every time I hear Obama speak, I hear a man who is intelligent, gutsy and is able to communicate effectively. You understand what he is saying, unlike most politicians who talk in circles and blow hot air.
blog comments powered by Disqus