Zero Dark Thirty

[Bells]

So, i was interested in seeing this movie... i'll still probably watch it sometime, but a comment smarty made here grasped my ears. Got me intrigued about it in other ways... So i read some about it, pro and con, and it seems like a honest topic to talk about (praised be the heavens and multiverses above us that in a civil manner)

So, since i haven't seen the movie, i can't talk about the movie much really... i know some backstory, i know the trailers, and i've seen the rethoric... but none of that is the same as watching the movie and making my own mind about it. So there is that...

For that purpose, and since smarty was so openly straightforward against it, i looked over the words of the person behind the first review of this movie that i saw, moviebob, and since he is not against the movie, i thought those could serve as starting arguments to talk about it... Of course, Spoilers abound going forward, so be warned.

When I reviewed Zero Dark Thirty two weeks ago, the film had only been released to markets in and around New York and Los Angeles, a common rollout strategy for a film not scheduled to fully open until early January but aiming to qualify for Academy Award nominations. As such, I made only passing mention of the "this film endorses torture" controversy because at the time I was writing and editing the episode, said controversy looked like it was going to be a small one, limited to the immediate fallout from incendiary political columns like those by Frank Bruni and Glenn Greenwald.

My sense that the controversy wouldn't likely grow much beyond there was because, having seen the film, I was unable to discern how a great number of reasonable people - particularly those whose careers weren't premised on finding the political angle in anything - could see Zero Dark Thirty and then conclude that a film so resolutely ambiguous about its subject matter could be seen as an "endorsement" of anything (other than Jessica Chastain's lead character being tough as nails). It even avoids being cathartic about the climactic termination of Osama bin Laden. When the SEAL who fires the fatal shot is asked by a comrade, "Do you realize what you just did?" he doesn't even register a glance. A few seconds later, when he informs the others that "I shot the third floor guy," they pause for less than a moment before telling him to get back on cleanup duty.

But, as usual, I've underestimated the sheer level of distracting white noise indignation that can be generated when journalists from other disciplines try their hands at being movie critics. A man has to know his limitations, which is why I'm going to try and avoid getting too deep into any actual geopolitical implications concerning the film except where absolutely necessary (besides, there's another guy on the site who's better at that sort of thing than I am). But the controversy has only gotten bigger, so now I guess it's incumbent upon me to weigh in.

These are the facts: Zero Dark Thirty purports to be a dramatization of the CIA and U.S. Military Intelligence efforts to track down and kill 9/11 mastermind and Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The entire affair lasted ten years and culminated with a raid by SEAL Team 6 on a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan where the world's most-wanted terrorist was killed. Because the details of such operations (and intelligence ops in general) are largely classified, the film and filmmakers have stated that names and certain details have been altered or made vague - though they insist that it hews as closely to known/knowable facts as a film aiming to function as drama can reasonably be.

Here is the controversy, in a nutshell: The film effectively begins (after an audio-only opening featuring an "sound collage" of 9/11 related sound clips played over a black screen) with its main character, Maya (Chastain) observing the interrogation of a captured terrorist. During the interrogation, the agents - primarily one played by Jason Clarke - try to extract information from their prisoner using sleep deprivation, waterboarding, sexual humiliation (specifically, they take away his pants while Maya is present) and, finally, folding him into a box roughly the size of your average family camping-cooler for an undisclosed period of time. Among other questions, during the waterboarding, he is repeatedly and loudly asked "When was the last time you saw bin Laden?" The audio (but not the video) of that moment became the rhythmic background noise of the film's first trailer.

It's a tough scene. Hard to watch, impossible to be "happy" about even when you already know (as we do here) that the guy is a terrorist. In fact, in cinematic terms he's unnervingly close to sympathetic. While being boxed up, he's given one last chance to give them "the date" ... and instead rattles off every day of the week in a moment of "you can't break me!" defiance not all that dissimilar to displays of the same by good guys in other movies.

Except, as it turns out, the information he was withholding was the date and location of The Khobar Massacre in Saudi Arabia. "When was the last time you saw bin Laden?" was an extra bit thrown into the mix by the interrogator, but preventing this imminent attack was the primary goal - which they don't accomplish and which goes off according to plan, resulting in horrific murders. For those of you playing at home: the torture didn't work.

To me, this should be "Case closed!" on the whole controversy. In the film's "set piece" moment of so-called enhanced interrogation, the brutal techniques are shown to fail. Furthermore, later on they do get good intelligence from the tortured man by switching tactics. Assuming that, as a captive, he can't possibly have known that his allies' attack was successful, Maya and the agents invite him out into the sunlight, offer him his first actual meal in ages and attempt to tease information out of him by claiming that - in his battered stupor - he had given up "the date," that they'd thwarted the attack and that he no longer had anyone or anything to protect. This technique works, and hands Maya a few more scraps of data to continue her quest. I can't imagine a more thorough rebuke of enhanced interrogation short of the characters turning toward the audience and gravely intoning, "This. Is. Wrong!"

Which seems to be what much of the outraged Pundit Class wants it to have done - nevermind that to do so would violate the strenuously detached motif of the film, to say nothing of the rules of good drama.

Either way, now that more and more of the people angry/worried about the film's position (or lack thereof) on torture have actually seen it (apparently, journalists outside the arena of film reviewing aren't keen on the idea that you should watch a movie before opining on its content) and, presumably, noted the same key elements I just did, the talking point has been shifted from "Zero Dark Thirty endorses torture" to "Zero Dark Thirty implies that torture played a role in catching bin Laden, but it actually didn't." This new critique is shared by The CIA itself - The CIA, of course, being an organization that would only ever speak with 100% truth and clarity about itself and its activities, right?

Snark aside, this feels a bit more like an understandable (though not necessarily agreeable to me) concern, given the source of the discontent. Almost to a man (or woman) the hand-wringing about Zero Dark Thirty's presentation of torture has come from pundits hailing from the left wing of the American political spectrum, many of whom have been part of a long-fought effort to expose as an unmitigated disaster the near-entirety of the Bush-era "neo-conservative" anti-terrorism effort of which enhanced interrogation was most definitely a part.

Many such folks, being denizens of the professional media, are more than likely themselves fully capable of discerning that Zero Dark Thirty presenting torture as having taken place as part of the vast post-9/11 intel-gathering mission that included the hunt for bin Laden (which is true) is not the same thing as saying that there was a direct or meaningful connection between this or that instance of torture and the actual capture of bin Laden. However, one could be forgiven for assuming that a great deal of the U.S. movie-going public does not possess the same capacity for nuance and might indeed come away from this very dense, very complex film having (incorrectly) interpreted its story and/or message as "Oh, we beat those guys up and that's how we found Osama!" Which would be unfortunate for any number of reasons including the possible follow-up conclusion of "I guess those Bush guys were right, after all!"

In other words, I think it's fair and reasonable to ask if those attacking Zero Dark Thirty for supposedly endorsing torture are having that reaction through honestly feeling that it does or if, even on some subconscious level, they're more specifically worried that said endorsement might be inferred by audiences and potentially undermine a narrative about the Bush-era "War on Terror" that they've put considerable effort into advancing. It would be a familiar cycle wherein the discussion of films by personalities more concerned with politics than artistry is concerned. Ironically enough, prior to the film's release it was attacked by "the other side" on the basis that a big movie about the foreign policy triumph of his administration might help President Obama secure a re-election victory (although it turns out he didn't need the help).

Concerns about audiences inadvertently taking the wrong lesson away from a film that refuses to make things "easy" for them are perfectly valid (to be clear, all of the various pundits' concerns are perfectly valid- as concerns). But for me it comes down to this: It's wrong to punish a movie for something an audience member might wrongly infer from it, and it's also wrong to accuse a movie of promoting something when it does exactly the opposite right there on screen.

There are a lot of smart, intense discussions that Zero Dark Thirty can start. Whether or not the film endorses torture, however intense, is not in my estimation one of the particularly smart ones.

And of course, you can see it also on the escapist right here
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/arti...lateral-Damage

[Kim]

It's a good thing Moviebob is terrible otherwise I might almost care what he thinks.

[Nique]

eh I dunno man, like, clearly terrorists are fucks. But it's just kind of hard to get on board with anything that's pro-military which this movie obviously is regardless of nuance so color me uninterested.

EDIT: And not to derail but, personally, I like Moviebob and I think he get's it right in terms of the social messages the media he reviews is sending but I think he might lose people by giving folks who are doing bad stuff the benefit of the doubt sometimes.

[Bells]

It's from the same director from The Hurt Locker, so that's pretty much all background you need to know coming in.

As for MovieBob, he is alright most of the time... in some reviews or opinions he gets overly personal ( his reviews on American Pie, Expendables, Scott Pilgrim... all good examples of that), but i suppose being a movie critic this is hardly unheard of...

I remember Act of Valor being lauded quite a bit for doing stuff like replicating actual military tactics and even using real bullets and soldiers in scenes to pass an authentic feel, but this seems to be a completely different beast. For example, they rewrote the ending cause Bin Laden was killed while they were still in production, the original ending wasn't even suppose to get there...

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I like how in the Oceans movies we spent an hour building up plans that all failed and nobody stole any money. I thought maybe the fellowship of the ring shouldn't have all died in Moria though.
Also didn't Moviebob see the restaurant they went to- it looked terrible. That was the real torture.

Moviebob is so loveably stupid and tries so hard- he's like a little baby puppy. It's cute. According to him, Memento is a ringing endorsement of the wonders of memory loss.

E: While it may seem terrible to choose between my children, I think my favourite individual bit of stupidity in Moviebob's brain explosion is the "Oh they took him out to dinner, that's not torture" when one of the most common methods of torture is psychologically dislocating people by mixing up torturing them with pretending to be their friend. Like as someone who is about to write an article criticising people for writing about stuff they don't know about you would at the very least do a quick google search of the topic you are writing about to make sure you at least know what you are talking about. But not Moviebob!

[BloodyMage]

Originally Posted by Bells

... in some reviews or opinions he gets overly personal ( his reviews on American Pie, Expendables, Scott Pilgrim... all good examples of that), but i suppose being a movie critic this is hardly unheard of...

The Amazing Spider-man would be another example. He really hates that film.

I never really intended to watch Zero Dark Thirty because it just doesn't seem like the kind of film I'd like. But the the fact that they had to change the ending because Osama Bin Laden died during filming and production is quite hilarious. It's rare that real life circumstances forces a film to have a happy ending.

[Osterbaum]

Originally Posted by Nique

eh I dunno man, like, clearly terrorists are fucks.

I don't know man, not necessarily any more than those people who created for them a world that drove them to terrorism/made them into terrorists.

[pochercoaster]

Originally Posted by Professor Smarmiarty

I like how in the Oceans movies we spent an hour building up plans that all failed and nobody stole any money. I thought maybe the fellowship of the ring shouldn't have all died in Moria though.
Also didn't Moviebob see the restaurant they went to- it looked terrible. That was the real torture.

Moviebob is so loveably stupid and tries so hard- he's like a little baby puppy. It's cute. According to him, Memento is a ringing endorsement of the wonders of memory loss.

E: While it may seem terrible to choose between my children, I think my favourite individual bit of stupidity in Moviebob's brain explosion is the "Oh they took him out to dinner, that's not torture" when one of the most common methods of torture is psychologically dislocating people by mixing up torturing them with pretending to be their friend. Like as someone who is about to write an article criticising people for writing about stuff they don't know about you would at the very least do a quick google search of the topic you are writing about to make sure you at least know what you are talking about. But not Moviebob!

Movie Bob also said Sucker Punch is about "hating men" and that third-wave feminism holds that objectification is empowering. I just can't.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Welcome to everyday of my life dealing with you peoples.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

I don't know man, not necessarily any more than those people who created for them a world that drove them to terrorism/made them into terrorists.

yeah like terrorism isn't an Always Bad thing, too. or at least it can be used for the greater good.

ALTERNATE ANSWER: well america was founded by terrorists and look how that turned out