I have noticed something interesting among viewers of 24.. First of all, it is a given that nobody likes or respects President Charles Logan, nor should they.
I have noticed, though, from talking to people that inevitably comparisons get drawn to a real-life disliked president, depending on where you stand politically. Liberals seem to sieze on the receding hairline and jowls, and think of Nixon. I have to confess that I saw an obsession to petty detail, an inability to see the big picture, and a concentration on public image over policy, and I think of Carter. Other right wingers I know share this sentiment.
For me, it’s just an uncanny physical resemblance, from certain angles. There’s no element of “Nixon was a bad president,” and “Logan is a bad president,” therefore Logan reminds me of Nixon.
For one thing, I think Nixon is a hugely underrated president. Obviously, there are some serious flaws there, but overall his administration deserves some credit that it’s rarely accorded. Breakthrough foreign relations policy, the introduction of practical thinking to the situation in Vietnam, action on the environment, or any number of other considerable accomplishments. All overlooked because of the shadow cast by that other unpleasantness.
As far as personality is concerned, Nixon and Logan are about as unlike as it’s possible to be. Nobody would ever accuse Nixon of being weak-willed and wishy-washy, which are Logan’s dominant characteristics.
But goddamn if Gregory Itzin wasn’t born to play Nixon in a biopic. The physical resemblance is startling – not just the hairline and the jowls, but the lines in his face, the little bags under his eyes, and (in profile) his nose. Spit-and-image.
He’s said that during rehearsals and early readings he covered the entire range from “staunch leader” to “abject coward,” and the directors have always cried out “More coward!” I don’t think the comparisons to Nixon have thing one to do with the performance or the character.
If I bumped into that guy on the chair-lift, I’d say to myself, “Holy crap! Does that guy look like Richard Nixon, or what?” It’s not because winter sports put me in the mind of notable Republicans, it’s because (Holy crap!) that guy looks like Richard Nixon.
If he happened to look like Jimmy Carter, I’d look at his work on 24 and say “Jesus, he looks like Jimmy Carter,” even though I’m this close to thinking that the sun itself shines out of Jimmy Carter’s ass.
He looks like Nixon, but it’s hard to tell who he reminds me of on the policy front.
He could be kind of Bush, but Bush, if threatened by the Chinese at the end of Season 4, would have probably told them to fuck right off and that he would never hand Jack Bauer over the Chinese, particulary after all he’s done. He would have also never let that lawyer anywhere near that guy in season 4.
Logan, on the other hand, has no balls at all. Just yell at him loudly enough and he’ll do whatever you want. I don’t know if we’ve ever had a president that spineless.
I am treading a fine line between Pit and Great Debates here, so I will try to be kind…
Everybody I know assumes it is supposed to be Dubya - loathsome, clueless and surrounded by people telling him what to do, say and think.
Seriously - every person I know who has ever brought up the subject (quite a few at work and many friends who watch the show) just assume this is the writers’ dig at Dubya.
Indeed, the character is such a pusillanimous pantywaist that it’s hard to credit someone like him being selected as a running mate. He makes Dan Quayle look like Eisenhower.
Huh. My assessment of GWB is not terribly complimentary, but he’s nothing if not confident and decisive. I don’t see any similarity at all.
Clueless? Maaaaybe. But not in a way that’s substantially similar to Logan. This is a pretty general way to disparage someone.
Loathsome? Eh, he strikes me that way, too. But in a way that’s utterly unlike Logan. I find him that we because he strikes me as too smug by half. Logan couldn’t work up a good smug if he’d just had a threesome with some Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders in behind the bar at his high school reunion and made sure that all the right people knew it. Logan’s loathsome because he’s a craven weakling.
Has a bunch of people hanging about telling him what to say, do, and think? Dude, that’s called “Being the president.” Besides, W’s advisors are all on the same page as he is.
I don’t think he’s meant to resemble any actual president. It seems to me that the character is conceived entirely as an antithesis to David Palmer.
Try it: Think of any declarative statement you can make about Palmer, and state its inverse.
…is Integrity Incarnate.
…is a shrewd operator.
…has Jack’s respect.
…trusts Jack implicitly.
…has a First Lady who’s working for the terrorist plot behind his back.
…is black.
…is hawt.
…comes equipped with a male appendage.
…etc, etc…
Flip it around and, hey presto, you’ve got President Logan.
My Logan-Nixon comparisons (and I think I was among the first, since I yelled it the first time I saw him in profile) have always been based purely on Logan’s appearance. I don’t see any of Nixon’s deviousness in Logan, nor any of his foreign policy expertise. I guess they’re both loathsome, but like I said, I didn’t know that the first time I saw the guy.
Check out the Day 3-4 thread in Cafe Society, and you’ll see observations that Logan is like Nixon and Bush.
Like I said in the OP, I can see why Logan would remind people of Nixon, because of the physical resemblance. However, watching him, I am powerfully reminded of Jimmy Carter, and I am not the only one who has been so reminded.
In my humble opinion, this comes from the same impulse that leads some people on the other side of the political spectrum to project their perceptions of Bush onto Logan.
It’s irrational and has nothing to do with any concrete isomorphism between Logan and the hated “other.”