ZERO DARK THIRTY thread: 95/97

[RRA]

Apparently not seeing this film didn't prevent RRA from making a poll thread about Bigelow's work.

And I made a Peter Jackson poll before seeing HOBBIT. I also made a point in each thread of not having seen either's latest films yet when I posted it. You forgot to mention that.

I know people are upset over ZD30, but I thought I tried to make a point that I can appreciate a film's artistic (or entertainment) value without necessarilly in lockstep with the politics. I'm intrigued, I want to see it and grade for myself. How many locals liked ZD30 without subscribing to the torture works meme?

Why weren't people upset when I tried to compare this to JFK?

EDIT - actually my mistake, I didn't mention not seeing ZD30 yet until my 2nd posting in that particular poll thread. Opps.

[RRA]

I guess this whole debate is one problem with making a movie about a major historical event so soon after it happened, when you deny yourself the ability to look back 20/20 in full political/historical/morality context when we're not still in the moment and not know everything. I am certain, knowing the history of the movies, that this won't be the last movie made on the OBL hunt nor will this last as the quote on quote "definitive" filmatic account of that story. Probably 20-30 years later, if not sooner?

Of course I would argue this debate is no longer about the movie itself about a long lingering issue that was tabled by the American Left more or less when Obama came to office, but it's returned to the frontline of discourse. I consider that a good thing?

[Bremen]

Well, I most certainly DO appreciate Aurelius' thoughtful dissection here, especially his not bringing the level of discourse here down into the name-calling gutter. And yes, I obviously would have a much stronger leg to stand on should I go against my principles and financially support the film.

Just buy a ticket to another movie and sneak in. Problem solved. I've done that before when a movie was listed as sold out. Still found a seat in the front row.

What's your excuse now?

[electric_storm]

This is like two people having sex, one telling the other intimate personal information lying there in each others arms afterwards and you saying "The only personal information was exchanged during a moment of quiet cuddling. Sex was totally irrelevant!"

True but the nature of the informaton and how it was conveyed was still suitably obtuse enough to not convey any blatant "torture gets results!" message imo. I'm probably not well suited to this discussion anyway though because while I find the act morally irreprehensible, I don't find it particularly bothersome to suggest that people have and do give up information under extreme duress (as well as a good deal of lies obviously). Whether that was actually the case in this situation we will probably never know, I sincerely doubt any government spokesperson is ever going to admit as such.

[RRA]

All I know is fuckhead Sean Hannity endorsed the movie and its politics, yet anti-torture Andrew Sullivan saw the movie and claims it doesn't support torture.

So yeah, I...don't know what to think right now. Surely it can't be that abstract that it can be interpreted either way?

[Aurelius]

No, but either interpretation is made because it fits their narrative.

[Sage]

All I know is fuckhead Sean Hannity endorsed the movie and its politics, yet anti-torture Andrew Sullivan saw the movie and claims it doesn't support torture.

So yeah, I...don't know what to think right now. Surely it can't be that abstract that it can be interpreted either way?

Why is this surprising to people? This has nothing to do with being "abstract," and everything to do with people's motivations going in. If you go in with a preconception and a list of check-boxes you expect to see, you'll probably have the wrong reaction to the movie. And why are people even paying attention to these sensationalist crusaders? I recently saw on Twitter that Andrew Sullivan (with Glenn Greenwald backing him up) is now accusing JON STEWART of supporting torture, based on absolutely nothing other than that he said to Jessica Chastain that the movie "challenged him." Does THAT sound rational to people? Or maybe (JUST MAYBE!) is it the result of a preexisting axe to grind? Good lord when does it end.

Anyway, first of all, Sean Hannity wouldn't even be mentioning this movie at all if the MSNBC crowd wasn't all up in arms about it. The blame is on them.

Secondly, why on earth are people acting as if it's something new for disturbing movies about war and violence to be badly misunderstood by an alliance of political crusaders and morons? I mentioned Army of Shadows, because that example is probably the most directly apt, but one really need not go that far: look at the work of Scorsese, Spielberg, Kubrick, Ford, Kurosawa, Coppola. Like, this happens more often than it doesn't, the only difference this time is that it's been blown up by cable news. The political crusaders often include very well-meaning people who are very much experts in their field, but nonetheless they're almost always wrong when it comes to these movies.

And as for the morons? The ones who stand up and cheer about stuff they're really not supposed to? Good god, that shit is as old as the movies. If we're going to exclude every movie where that happens, we're not just talking obvious examples like Taxi Driver and A Clockwork Orange, we're pretty much talking every single western and war film ever made, and, hell, even the movies of Buster's beloved David Lynch (I meet more people who like his movies for morally horrifying reasons than I do people who like his movies for the right reasons.)

Now if you've seen this movie, found it objectionable, and have a coherent argument to make based off of the material that's actually on the screen, go ahead and make that argument. But people need to quit acting like Greenwald, Sullivan, retired FBI dudes who have probably seen about 8 movies in the past decade, Hannity, Liz Cheney, or a group of bigots on twitter have any relevance to the actual content of this movie at all. Because they don't. Unless you're also prepared to use the same argument to dismiss like half of the movies in the cinematic canon.

[Jonathan]

Excerpts from the cover story: http://entertainment.time.com/2013/0...t-of-darkness/

[shooter_mcgavin]

Why does this whole issue about Torture whether it endorses it or not remind me of the South Park episode "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs"?

[Pingy]

Why does this whole issue about Torture whether it endorses it or not remind me of the South Park episode "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs"?

I haven't heard of any outbreaks of vomitting (although I'm sure if Butters watched it, he might go off and try to kill John Lennon).