I think that is always fantastically stupid, but it's usually so evident that people don't need to be called out for it. I always try to engage with such people to find out why they take such an extreme standpoint (like I tried to with Buster). This doesn't mean I don't think it's stupid, but I like to figure out their way of thinking. To be honest, I never have
.
I will marshall all the forces of darkness to hound you to an assisted suicide - Peter Capaldi, In The Loop
But some of the articles do seem to disagree about this. For example this is from Jane Mayer's article in the New Yorker:Originally Posted by Scarmi
Mayer states that film depicts torture as playing a "key role" in catching bin Laden. This is what Emily Bazelon's article in Slate says on the same point:Yet what is so unsettling about “Zero Dark Thirty” is not that it tells this difficult history but, rather, that it distorts it. In addition to excising the moral debate that raged over the interrogation program during the Bush years, the film also seems to accept almost without question that the C.I.A.’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” played a key role in enabling the agency to identify the courier who unwittingly led them to bin Laden. But this claim has been debunked, repeatedly, by reliable sources with access to the facts. As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent first reported, shortly after bin Laden was killed, Leon Panetta, then the director of the C.I.A., sent a letter to Arizona Senator John McCain, clearly stating that “we first learned about ‘the facilitator / courier’s nom de guerre’ from a detainee not in the C.I.A.’s custody.” Panetta wrote that “no detainee in C.I.A. custody revealed the facilitator / courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts.”
Now maybe "what happens in the film" on this point is more a matter of interpretation. But there clearly is a substantial difference between these two articles on the key issue of whether the movie depicts torture as having played a crucial role in capturing bin Laden.It’s important, I think, that the grim scenes of Amar’s torture do not lead directly to any revelation of Bin Laden’s whereabouts. Amar’s torture leads to a name, a possible connection to the al-Qaida leader. And as we learn in a subsequent scene, the existence of that courier was not new to the CIA agents: We see Maya watching tapes of other interrogations, brutal and not, in which this courier is discussed; though he’s called by different names, he’s come up before. The movie thus doesn’t show a vicious act of torture leading straight to a game-changing piece of intelligence, or even a unique piece. After all, the interrogation of Amar takes place in 2004; Bin Laden remained free for seven more years. And yet it’s Amar’s information that feels crucial, because it’s presented as the root of Maya’s obsession with this particular lead. This is the way in which the movie credits torture: It suggests that the tenacious agent who led the hunt wouldn’t have been moved to do so without this piece of information given up by a detainee who’d been tortured.
I think he's completely contradicting himself though. In the first sentence he says "can't judge it" and in the very next he's built an opinion on "what he's read" that he "firmly believes the film is pure propaganda." How is that not contradicting himself?
I want to see the film because I think it looks like good filmmaking. Once I see it I can make a more educated opinion based on my views and the views of those that praise it and those that demonize it (or fall in between).
Eh, sort of? I mean, Bazelon describes exactly what happens in the film in more detail and explains that it doesn't actually draw a direct line between torture and the bin Laden discovery, but she also comes to the conclusion that the film portrays the information revealed by torture as "crucial" to the search.
I don't follow Bazelon's line of thinking: the film shows a torture session bringing up an important name, then shows that that name was already known by the CIA. Logically thinking, one would say: then why the hell did we torture the guy, if we already knew the name?
I will marshall all the forces of darkness to hound you to an assisted suicide - Peter Capaldi, In The Loop
Both sides are making valid arguments here at AD but the problem is the intensity. Both sides (and when is ay this, of course I don't mean, Scarmi and Aurelius) have not seen the movie and they are dismissing vehemently the other party while not noticing that they are doing the same thing. No harm in discussing it as I said before but a little cool. As for myself, I think, without the seeing the movie, that it will not be pro torture but the ambiguity and nuanced required to interpret the actual intention of the film makers seem to be quite high. As an art, as a great film this might be great but for a general viewer (and thee will be many as this is not an art house movie and given the topic) it might at the day come off as, if not pro-torture, but sort of comfortable with it. I know is is not an excuse to attack it and not perhaps a even valid criticism but just an unavoidable risk. I will know, like everyone else, the rest when I actually watch it.
I need to see the movie first.
Does that make sense? Both sides need to relax.
Try some sailor jerry with a coke...Add a bit of vanilla ice cream.
Yum!
What is sailor jerry? Sounds like one of Erik's tricks. And coke with ice cream, ew; disgusting.
Hey!
Of course if he had some coke, then duh, yes.
Spiced rum.
Disgusting? You would probably say the same about a white russian.
We can't be friends.
I'm not contradicting myself my judgement on it is based on reviews and descriptions of the film. Everything I've read about it paints the film as a celebration of our "victory" over evil with the war on terror. I won't go further into my opinion about the matter in this thread though. I just want to clarify I never disagreed that its good film making since I'm sure it is, but it wouldn't be the first time someone made a great film that I personally found morally apprehensive.
Throughout the year I've been mostly silent on this film and will now go back to doing just that. And yes you can call my comment fantastically stupid all you want I have no intellectual or emotional need to argue with you.
Yet here you are. All I am saying is that it's odd to in one sentence say you don't judge and then in the very next lambast the film on what you think it might be like. It's weird.
There are obviously going to be very emotional responses to this subject and I don't want to or mean to quash ideas and thoughts. What I don't like though are hardlined pre-opinions that are simply based on other people's thoughts. But, I apologize for calling your comment fantastically stupid, that wasn't very nice. I dont think you're trying to be intentionally confrontational or argumentative or contrary, like others are.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but Greenwald's behavior is bridging the gap between defensive and just bizarre. He's now compiling and tweeting lists of people who agree with him.
Isn't the Chastain character based on the some lady who rendition'd an innocent guy and wanted to torture even more?
I have more of a problem with her being portrayed as a hero.
This seems like a good place to close and start anew.
Posting Permissions
