SecondWindGroup
patreon
[COLUMN] Netflix’s Zero Day Is Haunted by the Ghost of Joe Biden | by Darren Mooney
🕑 Added 2025-02-24 15:00:19 +0000 UTC
Note: This piece contains full spoilers for Zero Day, the six-episode miniseries that premiered on Netflix this week. It’s not great.
Watching so much recent pop culture, it really does feel like the reelection of Donald Trump took a lot of people by surprise.
According to insider reports, Disney heavily retooled Captain America: Brave New World as a result of events that the company did not foresee when they initially greenlit it: “Trump, the war in Gaza, the tension in America right now.” Indeed, even in its heavily reworked theatrical cut, Brave New World cannot help but feel like apologia for Donald Trump, ending with its villainous criminal commander-in-chief resigning himself to prison to “let the country move on.”
There is a similar energy to Zero Day, the new show from Eric Newman, Noah Oppenheim and Michael Schmidt. The six-episode miniseries is set in the wake of the eponymous cyber-attack upon America that leaves thousands of people dead. As the United States scrambles to respond, its institutional power structures find themselves under a great deal of pressure. Zero Day is notable as a star vehicle for Robert DeNiro, the veteran actor’s “first starring TV series role.”
DeNiro stars as President George Mullen, who served a single term in the Oval Office before retiring from public life. Mullen is approached by sitting President Evelyn Mitchell (Angela Bassett) to head the committee tasked with investigating this horrific terrorist attack against the nation. As panic takes hold, and as the public opinion begins to fracture into conspiracy theories and paranoia, Mullen finds himself struggling to uphold the Constitution while protecting the United States.
Zero Day is obviously in tune with this cultural moment. It is populated by oligarchs like Robert Lyndon (Clark Gregg), technocrats like Monica Kidder (Gaby Hoffmann), and right-wing internet pundits like Evan Green (Dan Stevens). It’s about the “post-truth” era. “You can look at two different news sources and come away with a completely different version of the truth and that terrified me, and when something scares me, generally, it sort of inspires me,” explained Eric Newman.
Zero Day rips a lot of its story directly from the headlines. The cliffhanger of the penultimate episode hinges on the death of tech company owner Monica Kidder, who had been arrested for her role in the attacks and who “conveniently hangs herself before anybody can ask her any questions.” Her body in her prison cell, where somebody had “looped the feed.” Her death protects the real architects of the scheme. It also very directly evokes conspiracy theories around the death of Jeffrey Epstein.
However, Zero Day very pointedly avoids any direct invocation of Trump himself. In publicity for the series, Newman has stressed that there is no obvious Trump analogue, arguing that “no one has a monopoly on dishonesty.” The most obvious point of comparison would be Richard Dreyer (Matthew Modine), the opportunistic speaker of the house with an obvious desire to take advantage of the crisis created by the attacks. However, Dreyer is smart, sophisticated and erudite.
This absence of a direct point of comparison to Trump is interesting. DeNiro has long been an outspoken critic of Trump, even in the most unexpected contexts. However, DeNiro has been decidedly muted in his criticisms of Trump while promoting Zero Day. In this context, it is perhaps worth noting that Zero Day co-creator Michael Schmidt has written about the chilling effect felt by Trump critics fearing “retribution” in Trump’s second term; DeNiro himself has had awards revoked for speaking out against Trump. However, this might be an overly conspiratorial reading.
It seems more likely that, like Brave New World, Zero Day was originally conceived and written with the hope that Donald Trump’s first administration was – to quote President Joe Biden – “an aberrant moment in time” and that the country could – to quote President Thaddeus Ross – “move on.” Indeed, while any direct reference to Trump is absent from the show, there is a clear sense that Zero Day is engaged with the challenge of dealing with a world shaped by Trump.
DeNiro was an outspoken supporter of former FBI head Robert Mueller, to the point of playing him on Saturday Night Live. Mueller publicly testified before Congress on Russian interference in the 2016 election, with his report on Trump generally regarded as something of a damp squib that pulled its punches. As such, it feels pointed that Zero Day climaxes with Mullen called to testify before the Joint Houses, and Mullen refusing to compromise his report and protect the guilty.
That said, even more than Mueller, there is one recent public figure who haunts Zero Day: Joe Biden. Mullen is introduced as a career politician who only served a single term in office. Mullen is generally regarded as a fundamentally decent man, “the last President in living memory who was able to consistently rally bipartisan support”, which resonates with Biden’s emphasis on his ability to work with both sides of the political aisle.
Mullen is haunted by the tragic death of his son, Nick (Jackson Eick), much like the death of Beau Biden cast a shadow over the Biden family. Throughout the season, Mullen finds himself disoriented and confused, to the point that his wife Sheila (Joan Allen) insists that he take “a psych evaluation” to prove that he is “of sound mind”, evoking the debate over Joe Biden’s cognitive state. Eventually, it is revealed that Mullen is being targeted by a secret neurological weapon, codenamed “Proteus.”
Indeed, even the central moral dilemma that hangs over the finale of Zero Day cannot help but evoke Joe Biden. As part of his investigation, Mullen discovers that his own daughter, Alexandra Mullen (Lizzy Caplan), was complicit in helping to orchestrate the cyber-attacks, alongside Dreyer. This puts Mullen in an uncomfortable position, having to decide between protecting his child and seeing justice done. One of Biden's last major acts as president was to pardon his son, Hunter.
Mullen feels like a liberal fantasy of Biden, a version who made all of the right choices. Unlike Biden, Mullen stood aside after a single term instead of pursuing re-election. The revelation that Mullen’s disorientation and confusion is a result of a conspiracy evokes the early attempts by Biden’s allies to downplay his mental and physical decline. At the end of the season, Mullen chooses his country over his family, and (with her consent) declines to use his power to shield Alexandra.
Much like Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing offered “a version of Clintonism with both moral gravitas and political backbone”, Zero Day seems to present the audience with a heroic and romantic fantasy of Bidenism. In the wake of a massive and disruptive event – what President Mitchell describes as “collective trauma” – Mullen offers the promise of a return to “normalcy.” Indeed, Mullen’s defining moment in the season premiere is calming a mob down by appealing to their reason and decency.
Zero Day acknowledges that Mullen is a flawed man. It is revealed over the course of the season that he had an extramarital affair with his Chief of Staff, Valerie Whitesell (Connie Britton). He sits in the room as Evan Green is subjected to “enhanced interrogation.” Mullen is not a saint like Josiah “Jed” Barlet (Martin Sheen). However, he is fundamentally decent, particularly when compared to the alternatives. Zero Day strikes a very strange tone, as if the world has gone so topsy-turvy that 24 has become as aspirational as The West Wing.
While DeNiro acknowledges that Mullen resembles Biden “very slightly”, the production team insists that these parallels were entirely unintentional. “We did not expect Biden’s cognitive issues to become a campaign issue,” explains Newman. Oppenheim insists that the show’s emphasis on Mullen’s declining mental state “predated any similar questions being raised about President Biden’s condition.” Still, it’s very difficult to watch the show without thinking of Biden.
As such, it is very strange to watch Zero Day in the wake of Donald Trump’s re-election. While there was a window in which Trump’s first electoral victory could perhaps have been written off as a fluke, with Trump failing to secure both a plurality of voters and subsequent re-election, his recent victory suggests a major realignment in American politics. Biden is no longer an active political concern, and seems likely to be remembered as a historical curiosity rather than a return to normality.
There is a sense that, like Brave New World, Zero Day is not entirely sure how to handle this reality. According to Newman, the production team “definitely wanted to get far enough away from the inauguration so that [they] didn’t get lost in the jet wash of political reportage that’s going to come out.” However, the show is still releasing within Trump’s First 100 Days. Netflix even released the first trailer for Zero Day just two days after the inauguration.
As such, Zero Day is a strange beast. It is a show that very consciously and very aggressively wants to be of the moment, while misjudging what the moment would turn out to be. The series aims to be a conspiracy thriller about America navigating a crisis of its democracy, shepherded by a flawed but well-meaning patriarchal figure. Zero Day strains to end on a relatively optimistic note about the state of the American political experiment, and that might be the most outlandish thing about it.
Comments
JR
I'm not an expert myself. But from what I've heard from experts, the US President's role was, for a long time, more one of a head administrator than a political leader. Especially in the early decades of the US constitution it was meant to focus more on Congress as the political arena constantly under democratic surveillance (therefore, eg, midterm elections for Congress, not for the presidency). (And, as a side note, that is interesting, because post-absolutism or post-dictatorship revolutions tend to rather shift who has this immense amount of political power than to think political power differently, in a more confined way. See the horrible "democratic" - as in majority-driven without any regard for the democratic necessity that the political minority is allowed to become the majority - Terreur in the first years after the French Revolution.) The US Presidents' role was, obviously, very different during war times or other crises, when military power was more essential and/or political power was more centralized to deal with the issue at hand. But, for a long time, this always lead to a certain role-back of presidential powers (in favor of Congress or States' powers) in the crisis' aftermath. And, experts argue, this has become much less the case in the 20th and 21st century for a lot of reasons. So, you're certainly right concerning the mass media side. But the long-time view seems to be that on an institutional level, the counter-balances have also lost political weight wich they formerly had. And my idea was, that maybe, just maybe, this institutional development had already taken place when political and/or action thrillers around the President became more and more popular.
Cerulean
He does have a Way. Like Douglas Coupland, he makes me want to live in a world that has sincere conversations with quick wits at every turn. There are some classic, indelible scenes from The West Wing I'm glad I've seen. But his vehicles have the same problem Law & Order creates in the culture. People are reassured, thinking this is some reflection of political reality, and that was never true. It's interesting how TV creates that by virtue of repetition, while movies just have once shot at us. But anyway. I enjoy your columns, my dude. Cheers.
Tim Wilson
I think Presidents have always had a real cult of personality though. Even back from Washington and Jefferson there was a need for them to be larger than life. Consider Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. I think the tendency of other countries being a monarchy or similar removed this need. You don’t need to be charismatic when you’re born to the role and any Prime Minister was a figurehead at best; you just had to be liked by the monarch. There were celebrities such as Beau Brummel, but without the mass media of modern times it was much harder to get a wide reach for anyone except a head of state. That said, I’m no expert on US political history, so maybe these were the exceptions that prove the rule?
JR
That presidential position is a result of relatively recent developments though, from what I've heard. And with relatively recent I mean in terms of the existence of the US, not in terms of cinema history. Come to think about it, film possibly really started to get mainstream mass-market popular when this political shift had already taken place.... Would be interesting to know when this movie trend started though. Any idea, Darren, as resident expert?
Darren Mooney
Don't forget "Love, Actually." And the original "House of Cards." But I think your observation is broadly sound, and the fact that even when I'm correcting you, I have to go back to the 2000s and the 1980s. The US President is an interesting character archetype - and I'm reluctant to delve too much into it as a non-American - but it does get at a weird paradox in the American psyche. Where America takes great pride in being a democratic nation, and the break that represented with European political thought. But also, Americans kinda love the <i>idea</i> of a king and an emperor, just so long as they aren't called such. (Look at the US fixation on the UK royal weddings and coronations.) I do think it's that paradox of being a democratic nation that is so obsessed with individualism: cowboys, gangsters, superheroes. What's that "Simpsons" line? "Your guilty conscience may move you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king." Where even the American political system ultimately has to come down to one guy, who in various forms *is* the system as a person. In that Bartlett is less Clinton (no cheating on his wife!) than he is an expression of Clintonian ideals (a centrist politics of discourse). Even here, Mullen is obviously by Biden, but he's also rock solid in a way that Biden wasn't necessarily, representing the ideal of the institutionalism of Bidenism. I don't know if this makes sense.
Darren Mooney
Small wonders! (I did think a lot about Sorkin while watching the show. And I don't hate Sorkin. I think he's one of the best dialogue writers in the history of Hollywood and "The West Wing" is a delightful piece of drama. It's just strange that it's become a manifesto.)
Tim Wilson
And mocking him has kept him from power exactly 0 times. Yes, he’s pathetic, yes the far right are losers and they all roundly deserve mockery. But not taking them seriously gives his worthless followers a sense of legitimate grievance and makes him seem like the scrappy, outsider underdog they can get behind. Similarly, yes the people who voted him in are idiots. And there was a massive proportion of the voting population who have become so jaded and demoralised that they didn’t vote at all. So who’s stupider? The one who votes for a fascist, or the one who didn’t vote against him? It’s an easy answer to just dismiss everyone and everything as being stupid but that attitude is getting you Vance in 2028.
LifeIsStrange
I disagree, it's the stupidity of too many people and social media that allowed him into power. Taking him seriously only gives him more power, mocking him is what gets under his skin so I will continue to do so.
LifeIsStrange
yeah that's a weird way to word things.
LifeIsStrange
Have to say i'm very dissapointed to see you buying into that nonsense about Biden having a "mental decline", I genuinely don't get why people freaked out over that debate. Biden came off perfectly fine to me. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to point out how certain media outlets(with a vested interest in playing both sides and who have sanewashed Dunce which NYT are extremely guilty of, not that it saved them from getting their precious Pentagon access revoked LOL)exaggerated his issues. I was disgusted at how eager some people were to just sweep him aside(and i'm saying this as an ardent Harris supporter)perhaps he should've been given a chance to run again. I disagree on it being a "major realignment" as well considering how narrow Drump's victory actually was, he barely won the popular vote so let's not pretend like it was any kind of mandate. If anything is an aberration and curiosity it's Drumpf's re-election, not Biden's win. Especially when you look at how a democrat absolutely crushed it in a special election in Iowa this month in a distract that agent orange won by over 10 points(people love to conveniently forget that dems won a lot of elections last year, it was far from a "red wave") People would do well to remember what happened the last time someone won an election, lost and then ran and won again-it resulted in their party suffering historic losses and being in the minority for decades, Grover Cleveland almost destroyed the democratic party after his second win. Now it's the Republicans turn to suffer. There's nothing "outlandish" about this show being somewhat optimistic at all, can't expect all political shows to be nonstop doom and gloom.
Cerulean
Business as usual in a culture machine run by the wealthy that can't or won't cope with reality, you say. I was going to snark about 2016, but this is the pattern since at least The West Wing, no? It's starting to look like a literal nuclear war won't move that needle. At least we have How To Blow Up a Pipeline?
Michael McCarthy
Tim Wilson
I have to assume we’ll be seeing a lot of this; the refusal to consider Trump a threat is what keeps allowing him into power after all. This has made me realise what a ubiquitous trope the President as an active character is in US films though; I’m struggling to remember a film where the UK Prime Minister made an active appearance. Ali G In Da House is the only one to spring to mind.
