Is ‘Zero Day’ a Warning or a Hopeful Vision for America’s Future?

[This story contains major spoilers from the finale of Zero Day.]

Is it possible to find a solution for our deeply divided nation that appears stuck in an unfavorable situation? The novel, “Zero Day,” delivers a doubtful yet optimistic response to this conundrum.

Can we find a way out of our troubled country’s seemingly insolvable predicament? “Zero Day” provides both a pessimistic and hopeful answer to the question.

Is there any chance for escape from our divided nation’s seemingly unsolvable crisis? The novel, “Zero Day,” offers both a cynical and optimistic solution to this dilemma.

The political thriller produced by Netflix, featuring Robert De Niro, currently available for streaming in its entire six-episode run, delves into the themes of truth and responsibility in today’s post-truth world. A devastating cyberattack, referred to as a ‘zero day event,’ wreaks havoc on multiple U.S. systems for a minute, resulting in over 3,000 casualties due to widespread chaos. The story revolves around former President George Mullen (portrayed by De Niro), known as the last impartial POTUS, who heads the Zero Day Commission. This commission is tasked with discovering the circumstances surrounding this attack and taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent a recurrence.

Mullen finds out that those responsible for the zero-day attacks are actually domestic, rather than foreign. The attack is a local issue, making it particularly troubling for Mullen. The accomplices in this scheme were a powerful alliance, consisting of Big Tech executives such as CEO Monica Kidder (Gaby Hoffman), and government officials including the Speaker of the House (Matthew Modine) and even Mullen’s own daughter, Representative Alexandra Mullen (Lizzy Caplan).

As an ardent supporter, I shared my heartfelt convictions with my father, expressing my deep desire to mend the fractured nation. I lamented over the stark division within America, which has caused Congress to stagnate for 18 months without passing a single law. I assure you, I never intended for anyone to suffer in this process. Similarly, Dreyer and I aimed at trimming the extremist factions on both sides, exposing a perceived freedom that had been misconstrued as vulnerability. Our ultimate goal was to rekindle the shaken faith in our collective ability to lead effectively.

In a challenging predicament, Mullen finds himself torn when disclosing his commission’s findings. Despite a request from President Angela Bassett to keep the complete truth hidden, Mullen publicly presents all the facts before Congress and the nation tuning in at home. He reads a speech penned by his daughter, who has chosen to confess her actions. Afterward, he returns to an abandoned house, as his wife Joan Allen had departed, unable to endure the thought of losing two children following their son’s overdose tragedy.

According to Eric Newman, co-creator, co-showrunner, and executive producer, George Mullen makes the correct decisions, but it leaves him with nothing except his honor. This ending’s message, as he tells The Hollywood Reporter, is that those who aspire to lead must recognize that such a responsibility requires self-sacrifice.”

(The goal here was to rephrase the original sentence while maintaining its meaning and tone, but using more common phrases and simplifying some of the complex sentence structures.)

Both Newman and co-creator/executive producer Noah Oppenheim, a former NBC News president who collaborated with Michael S. Schmidt from The New York Times on creating the series, concur that our method of establishing truth is fundamentally flawed. This imperfection makes the conclusion of the show all the more captivating. In fact, Zero Day deliberately avoids mentioning political parties to keep focus on the narrative. As Oppenheim further explains, one of the main themes they aimed to explore from the outset was the actions individuals in power are prepared to take when they believe they’re safeguarding their country.

Discussing his initial role on television with THR, De Niro concurred about the neutral message. He mentioned that for his character, it was crucial to emphasize sincerity among individuals in order to accomplish anything. When pondering over ‘Zero Day’s portrayal of America following this crisis, one can’t help but wonder how it will recover. However, creators Newman and Oppenheim won’t be shaping that upcoming storyline. According to Newman, the series’ true nature is limited, with De Niro’s character making a significant sacrifice to do what’s right, which makes it challenging for him to continue in any leadership role. Filming ‘Zero Day’ was like shooting three movies simultaneously for De Niro, and he expressed uncertainty about his swift return to television.

The creators of “Zero Day” present an opportunity for viewers to ponder the depiction of America they’ve crafted. In a conversation with THR, Newman and Oppenheim highlight similarities to real-world politicians and associates – some anticipated, others unforeseen – while sharing insights into the investigative work behind their cautionary tale, hoping it will inspire rather than warn.

***

Could you please share some details about the origin of Zero Day? Specifically, I’m curious about the meeting between you two that occurred when Noah was still heading NBC News. What was the date of this meeting, and what sparked the idea for the show?

ERIC NEWMAN: In November 2021, we convened a meeting. By then, Noah had engaged his childhood friend Mike Schmidt in discussions regarding a tale he was pursuing, which revolved around an investigation that faced obstacles due to someone’s cognitive abilities. I inquired about our nation’s progress with respect to our connection with truth, and Noah’s response left me concerned. He suggested that what should be unbiased facts become subjective, and there exist multiple truths that persist simultaneously, even though they contradict each other, because people choose not to perceive things differently. The fusion of this notion and the one Noah and Mike had been discussing served as an ideal narrative tool for portraying the truth in a reality characterized by post-truth.

After that, you presented your concept for the show to Robert De Niro. Was a significant part of the idea already developed when you shared it with him?

GAMER: As I shared our story over dinner with Bob, I could tell from his enthusiasm that he was eager to read it. And let me tell you, if I had a buck for every time someone said “I can’t wait to read that,” well, you get the picture! But this time, it wasn’t just empty words. He dove right into our work and appreciated it. Not only did he grasp the essence of our message and the themes we aimed to explore, but he seemed genuinely intrigued by them as well.

In your series, you initially featured a previous president who was portrayed by Robert De Niro’s character, George Mullen. Later, Angela Bassett took on the role of the current president in the show. I’m curious, were these characters modeled after real-life presidents?

NOAH OPPENHEIM: Neither character is modeled after a specific person, but they both capture significant themes and emotional authenticity we aimed to portray. President Mullen serves as a figure of authority in the wake of a devastating incident. The nation looks to him for reassurance and solace. To embody this role convincingly, we needed an actor who could instantly convey dignity, reassurance, and confidence. There aren’t many actors who can do that effectively. Bob has built up a strong rapport with audiences over time, so when he enters the Oval office and is given the burden of responsibility, it feels natural and appropriate. The audience thinks, “He seems capable of comforting the country, and he possesses the necessary resilience to uncover the truth.” This makes his eventual flaws even more unsettling as we begin to question whether he’s truly who everyone believes him to be.

With Angela, it was crucial to find a president who, at this particular time, possessed the self-assuredness to relinquish control to another individual and had a multitude of other pressing matters. Angela’s motives in the series aren’t immediately apparent. When she delegates the investigation to President Mullen, she provides reasons that are clear, but there are also hidden reasons she keeps from both him and the audience. This president exudes an aura of authority as soon as they enter the Oval Office; you can’t help but think, “this person is right for this role.” Their scenes together feel like two giants squaring off against each other.

I’m really eager to learn more about the extensive research behind the creation of “Zero Day”. It is said that seasoned Washington insiders were consulted during its production, and Robert De Niro even utilized Cold War-era CIA contacts in preparing for his role as Mullen.

OPPENHEIM: Eric has consistently prioritized authenticity across all his productions, including Narcos and Painkiller. He was determined that our show should embody this too, despite being set in a fictional universe. Given my background in journalism, I’ve spent 25 years covering politics and had access to the White House, Capitol Hill, and various government agencies. Mike Schmidt also continues to cover politics today. We leveraged our extensive network of experts, both current and former government officials, to understand how such events might really unfold in real life. Our aim was to make it as genuine as possible.

Regarding the series, following the depicted attack, there are signs suggesting America is at the edge of a societal breakdown. In your studies and during the production process of this show, which scenario seems more frightening: the world portrayed in Zero Day or the one we live in now?

[Both laugh]

NEWMAN: We often discuss this topic. As I’m not a pessimist but rather realistic, I wonder if there’s anything we might fall short on? Could the real-world challenges we encounter be more daunting than those depicted in our series? I don’t think so, but it’s possible we could reach that point quite swiftly. The speed at which events unfold and changes occur, along with the domino effect of things going wrong, makes anything possible. If you had told me in 1999 about 20 events that would happen over the next 25 years, I would have thought you were insane, lacked understanding. Yet, here we are.

Hey Eric! Could you share some insights about working with co-creators and Executive Producer Noah Schmidt and Michael S. Schmidt, who have a background in political journalism. How did their expertise aid in the fact-checking process? What adjustments were made as a result?

After our discussions, we found numerous areas where improvements could be made. Noah has extensive knowledge about this realm. A team consisting of Noah, Mike, Eric Schulz (who worked in communications for Obama and still does), and Jeremy Bash (former chief of staff at the CIA and Pentagon under Obama) were all able to point out flaws in our plans because they have a clear understanding of how things actually function in the current world. Since we are trying to create a world that already exists, there is no shortage of experts willing to provide their advice.

OPPENHEIM: What has truly astounded us is the number of scenarios we wrote that seemed quite daring at the time, as if we were taking creative risks for entertainment and drama. These situations felt like areas where we could indulge in some imaginative license. Now, it’s almost surreal to see that several of these very scenes have mirrored real-life events. It’s as if our fictional stories were foreshadowing the future, and then reality followed suit.

I wanted to inquire if you had any similar instances to compare, given the connection between Robert De Niro’s character’s mental capacity being scrutinized and President Joe Biden deciding not to run for re-election, even though Zero Day finished filming in June 2024 before Biden actually stepped down in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris. Since the series is about to be released so close to former President Trump’s re-election, do you have other examples that might fit this context?

Our recent presidential election featured two of the oldest candidates ever, raising concerns about the mental abilities of those in power. While this isn’t unique to President Biden, the focus on this issue during his campaign was unexpected when we were creating Mullen’s storyline. The drama surrounding a powerful individual using their position to potentially shield a child from legal consequences after they commit a crime is a complex scenario that has been intriguingly portrayed. Moreover, we aimed to explore two main themes: first, what lengths people in power will go to when they believe they are saving the country; second, how many rules and norms they are willing to disregard or break if they consider their cause just. These are questions that remain relevant over time and are especially pertinent now.

AS A FAN: One of my favorite quotes comes from Goethe, a German philosopher, that goes: when faced with chaos or unfairness, people will opt for injustice rather than disorder. In times of crisis, people are surprisingly resilient and willing to do things they wouldn’t normally do – or even let others do to them – if it means restoring order and feeling secure. When the existing power structure is at stake, fear can drive people to make extreme sacrifices. We, as creators of our show, don’t think that any of the actions portrayed are unthinkable; in fact, we believe that under certain circumstances, even those who seem most reasonable might resort to such actions. And they would find a rationalization for their choices that, in the right light, could make perfect sense to us.

Some of the characters are very of this exact moment, particularly with the tech leaders.

REPHRASED: It’s clear that we don’t prefer individuals from the tech industry deciding our limits, and I wouldn’t be comfortable with strangers accessing my tax information or similar details. However, Elon Musk’s involvement is unexpected.

OPPENHEIM: What’s striking here is the recurring patterns in history, as if it were singing an old song. Just like the robber barons of the 19th century or today’s tech magnates, the strife between wealth and power in our nation and its democratic foundations has consistently existed. It’s fascinating to observe how a concept we discussed three years ago is unfolding now. However, this doesn’t make us prophetic; rather, it’s a recurring theme throughout American history.

Does Zero Day address anxieties about big tech, misinformation, national division, mistrust in government, yet surprisingly offers an uplifting finale unlike usual political thrillers – is it a warning or a beacon of hope? Each of you has their own view on this, so where do you stand and what message would you like the audience to carry away?

In my view, our current method for discerning truth seems flawed or at least operates according to a different standard. I think this implies that the responsibility of how to handle such information, your version of the truth, becomes even more significant. Doing what is right becomes all the more crucial, especially when you’re unsure about the actual truth. There remains an element of objectivity in making tough decisions and doing what’s right. George Mullen demonstrates this by doing what’s right, despite losing everything except his integrity. Those aspiring to lead should comprehend that such sacrifices are part of the job.

I’m delighted that you saw it as an optimistic conclusion, and that was exactly my intention. As Eric mentioned earlier, our institutions and media landscape might be flawed, but each one of us possesses a moral compass. Every day, we make a multitude of choices, from how we act at the grocery store to picking up our kids from school. These small decisions accumulate, and by making good ones – being considerate, kind, and generous towards our neighbors – we can create a positive impact.

Everyone can find a message in this series, yet it seems as though De Niro’s character is addressing politicians with, “This is the kind of person you aspire to be.” Is there any talk among politicos about the show, and do I hope they tune in?

Noah is more familiar with this world compared to me. I may recognize some faces here and then again, I’m not certain what they prefer to watch. Nevertheless, it might stimulate a discussion. Right now, we are dealing with press inquiries, and people are asking intriguing questions about our perspective on art and its significance during such periods when there is such a gap between people. We hope that viewers will perceive the message without feeling it’s biased and can interpret it based on their personal viewpoints.

I’ve shared my thoughts on Narcos with you numerous times, but let me express it differently: I’ve been consistently amazed by Narcos. Regardless of whether you believe the drug war is winnable or consider it futile, the series has an exceptional ability to educate both perspectives about the extent and impact of cocaine in our nation. It may not change minds on how to address the issue, but I hope it sparks a realization that something is amiss with our society when we’ve allowed drug trafficking to reach such alarming levels. My aspiration is that this revelation encourages people, whether they are politicians or voters, to acknowledge the problem and initiate discussion on potential solutions.

REPHRASED: The truth is, venues for discussions that were prevalent 25 years ago have either vanished or transformed into spaces that are no longer conducive to meaningful dialogue between differing viewpoints. Thus, unexpectedly, a Netflix series designed primarily for entertainment might be one of the few platforms where individuals with diverse beliefs can share an experience. Perhaps it’s in such settings that people can begin collectively pondering the challenges we face today.

Was it a straightforward choice or did you deliberate over whether to associate Zero Day with any particular political party, as there are no such affiliations presented in the book?

Making the decision was straightforward because we weren’t intending to make any political statement with the show. Our aim was to create something that would captivate as a gripping whodunit, maintain tension as a suspenseful thriller, and keep viewers engaged throughout six episodes. Labeling individual characters based on partisan lines would only serve as a distraction from this. Moreover, having worked around politicians for so long, I’ve come to realize that few of them fit neatly into the categories of ‘hero’ or ‘villain.’ They are all complex individuals. Applying partisan labels to someone hinders understanding their complexity.

Did the investigation fail to clarify whether President Mullen was experiencing cognitive decline, potentially exposed to a neural toxin, or merely struggling under extreme stress? Why wasn’t this question conclusively answered in your findings?

From my perspective as a gamer, the storyline can be subjective and open to various interpretations. I made a choice when I was creating this narrative, and at some point, Noah and I agreed that this event was taking place. Whether we’ll ever fully confirm it or provide indisputable proof, for us, it did happen. Now, as I revisit it, it feels intriguing and somewhat surreal. Despite our decision, a part of me wonders if it actually occurred!

OPPENHEIM (Laughs)

REPHRASED: One of my all-time favorite films is Taxi Driver. Towards the end, there’s a part that I strongly believe is a dream sequence. I recently had the chance to pose this question to Paul Schrader, who wrote the screenplay for Taxi Driver. I asked him, “Is that a dream?” He responded, “No, it isn’t a dream.” However, I find myself disagreeing with his response. In my opinion, such moments in stories often feel like dreams to us as viewers, and there can be some degree of personal interpretation involved.

PARAPRASE: Our perception of stories and life itself is highly subjective. Two individuals can have a discussion about an event and interpret it in vastly different ways. This phenomenon becomes more pronounced when considering the technological advancements of the past two decades, which has brought us to where we are now. The same information can yield varying interpretations based on how it’s presented—what details are emphasized or omitted. As Eric pointed out, whether a situation involved a weapon or some internal conflict within Mullen, its effect on the investigation remains consistent. Even if we present one version of events, people might still choose to believe something else that aligns better with their beliefs or preferences.

What did you base Proteus on? The show’s neurological weapon.

OPPENHEIM: This concept is based on a situation known as the Havana Syndrome, where American diplomats, starting from the U.S. and later in Cuba, woke up with symptoms similar to those of brain injuries. Since then, it has occurred in Vienna and various locations worldwide, affecting CIA agents and senior U.S. diplomats. There is ongoing discussion within the U.S. intelligence community about whether this could be due to Russia possibly using a neurological weapon against government officials or if it’s a form of mass hysteria or some other explanation. Regardless, it remains a controversial subject and a genuine concern.

This Zero Day series only has a few episodes, providing a glimpse into the future of the nation post-crisis. Are there no more installments planned for this series?

At this moment, it seems like we’ve said everything there is to say and might only make things worse by saying more. We may find ourselves calling each other in the future, asking hypothetical questions such as “What if this happens…?” It was crucial for Bob that his character ultimately made a selfless decision, which makes it challenging for him to maintain any leadership role. All in all, we had a wonderful time working on this project and I believe we would revisit the political thriller conspiracy story if given the chance. We adore Bob and cherish our time spent with him, as well as with our amazing cast and team. Working with [Zero Day director] Lesli Linka Glatter was an absolute joy, she truly is a force of nature in the industry. However, while we can’t definitively say that we won’t continue, there are currently no concrete plans for the future.

When did you write the finale?

Originally, we planned to start filming in June 2023, but a strike halted us on the very first day. As a result, we had written the final episode for sure by spring of 2023.

Did you make any changes when you came back to filming?

OPPENHEIM: Not dramatic. Nothing major, no.

After Zero Day concludes, do you envision the following day as a nation moving towards unity after the truth has been revealed, or one that continues to be fractured and divisive?

OPPENHEIM: (Laughs) It appears we hold contrasting views on this matter. In the world as it stands, Speaker Dreyer [Matthew Modine] could be hailed a hero by one half of the populace, while he alleges being unfairly accused. The media, in my opinion, is portraying this as George Mullen’s hallucinations and slander against his political adversaries. It’s plausible that Alexandra Mullen [Lizzy Caplan], whether she desires it or not, has become a symbol of heroism and martyrdom. On the other hand, there are those trying to counteract this but have lost their ethical advantage due to the misconduct of the Zero Day Commission, and thus may find themselves with less ground to stand on in disputing this. To me, it doesn’t paint a pretty picture!

I’m a bit more hopeful than Noah. While I concur with his views, I believe the core of the issue lies in strengthening the moderate sector. It’s understandable if one perceives the opposing side as the antagonists and ourselves as the heroes, causing further entrenchment in that belief. On the contrary, there exists a group in the middle who recognize the predicament at hand – this is a constitutional crisis. The characters we enjoyed writing most were Roger Carlson, Jesse Clemons’ somewhat shady lobbyist, and Matthew Modine because he presents reasonable arguments. You find yourself agreeing with him, thinking “That sounds appealing. If he promises to get rid of the radicals on both sides, I would support that.” However, achieving this goal could potentially undermine the very thing we aim to preserve. This reminds me of the saying from Vietnam that you must destroy a village to save it, but such an approach doesn’t work in this context.

RESPONSE: I appreciate your positive outlook on the potential revival of the middle. What’s intriguing about leadership is its unpredictability – you can never truly tell where it will surface next. The charm of envisioning the world tomorrow lies in the unknown figure who might rise from the ashes, having witnessed all that has transpired and thought, “If we don’t act to correct this mess, we’re hurtling towards a precipice.” And how this individual manages to assert control and make their voice heard.

Have the similarities between your characters been noted? Alexandra Mullen (portrayed by Lizzy Caplan) resembles a young AOC or rising political star; Evan Green’s character, portrayed by Dan Stevens, is reminiscent of conservative hosts like Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro; and Angela Bassett plays President Mitchell, who bears some resemblance to Kamala Harris. Are these characters essentially combinations of different individuals, or are they unique in their own right?

None of them can be directly matched with anyone else, as they are all amalgamations based on various individuals.

REPHRASED: Our recommendations during interviews were strategic, typically responding to someone being proposed first. We aimed to avoid situations where someone might say, “That’s obviously so-and-so,” even in the tech industry. There are numerous figures in tech, ranging from Peter Thiel to Elon Musk, each with distinct roles. However, the connection between technology and politics is comparable to the relationship John D. Rockefeller and politics, Andrew Carnegie and politics, and so on had in their respective eras.

REPHRASE: It’s crucial to point out that these characters aren’t created as symbols to embody particular elements of our government or society. Instead, they are intended to be ordinary individuals. Alexandra Mullen, for instance, is the daughter of a revered ex-president. This can present a unique challenge when attempting to forge a distinct career in public service, as it’s not something that I believe has a direct real-world counterpart.

***

Zero Day is now streaming on Netflix.

2025-02-25 18:57

Read More