Zero Dark Thirty (Bigelow, 2012)

[McTeague]

Can you link to some of these reviews who don't address the torture issue? I haven't read a lot of reviews on the film, but I agree that addressing how the film handles the issues is pivotal.

For instance, the three trades:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117948801/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mov.../review/393870

http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/t...049377.article

After the first batch of reviews for the film I stopped reading most reviews (not because of this, but because I already had an idea of how much it had been liked), but I have the distinct memory that only after the first denounce from someone from the CIA some reviews started talking about that. Still, I'm under the impression than around a 90% of the reviews in RT are like Variety's or Screendaily: Is it thrilling? is it tense? Is it well made from a craft POV? And it's, honestly, kinda revolting. Even if there wasn't any torture scene, it's like, damn, aren't you gonna say anything about WHAT it is about, the borderline illegal, sheriff-like, perhaps useless, hunt and killing of that man? Then, the torture denounce from someone from the CIA (don't know who started it) happened and only then some media with a more politics-oriented slant said something. But in the beginning it was like, "hello"?

[steve4922]

I don't believe that ZDT's depiction of torture can properly be characterized as neutral. Rather, the film shows that torture had become "normalized" for the CIA agents in the film, and that's one reason these sorts of crimes occur. If you read any of the major books about the Holocaust, one of the reasons that ordinary Germans participated is because the machinery for killing jews ultimately was institutionalized and normalized by the Nazi state. In the same way, the torture depicted in ZDT was authorized (and even pronounded legal) by the higher-ups in the Bush administration and just became a standard part of the CIA operative's tool kit. Although the film does not show this, at some of the torture sites, the CIA even employed doctors to monitor the vital signs of the detainees while they were being tortured to make sure the detainees were not about to collapse or die.

Showing that torture had become normalized in this way is not a neutral presentation. During the first torture session Maya physically recoils, but nevertheless does not object, and she ultimately becomes hardened to these tactics. That's the way ordinary people many times become ensnarled in these types of monstrous acts that become, in effect, institutionalized by a government.

[VSW]

Ha! So you ARE very articulate! Thanks for that, and sorry for using your post to voice my concerns (it's a thought I gave its final shape to yesterday, after having been thinking for some weeks about the odd lack of comments, especially in the first batch of reviews, to the thorniest issues of the film, so that's why I didn't ). I just think anybody should engage with the content of this film, lol, kind of a civil duty. I know many people do but don't write about it, like you, for fear of not being very articulate, but shake off the fear! It has to be done! (especially you, who have just been so articulate despite your fear!). So thanks for doing so and sorry again.

Did I just get a compliment from McT?

No need to apologize. Thanks for your reply and I really need to force myself to come out of my shell more often and engage in these discussions.

[McTeague]

I don't believe that ZDT's depiction of torture can properly be characterized as neutral. Rather, the film shows that torture had become "normalized" for the CIA agents in the film, and that's one reason these sorts of crimes occur. If you read any of the major books about the Holocaust, one of the reasons that ordinary Germans participated is because the machinery for killing jews ultimately was institutionalized and normalized by the Nazi state. In the same way, the torture depicted in ZDT was authorized (and even pronounded legal) by the higher-ups in the Bush administration and just became a standard part of the CIA operative's tool kit. Although the film does not show this, at some of the torture sites, the CIA even employed doctors to monitor the vital signs of the detainees while they were being tortured to make sure the detainees were not about to collapse or die.

Showing that torture had become normalized in this way is not a neutral presentation. During the first torture session Maya physically recoils, but nevertheless does not object, and she ultimately becomes hardened to these tactics. That's the way ordinary people many times become ensnarled in these types of monstrous acts that become, in effect, institutionalized by a government.

If that's indeed what's happened (and I'm inclined to think it is) I don't know why showing it (normalized, institutionalised torture) wouldn't be neutral?

[affy18]

I haven't read all of Zizek's article because I don't want to be even more spoiled about this movie than I already have by the relentless media coverage and controversy around it but I find his position to be kind of deeply dangerous, and especially coming from a philosopher. I mean, in his self-righteous and morally unimpeachable milieu, Zizek may see that anything that doesn't outright denounce and rather approaches a neutral position on torture is reprehensible but that doesn't mean there aren't people out there who feel differently about not only this subject but others such as rape, death penalty, nazism, etc. Those are BIG, SERIOUS issues and I think they should be able to be approached, analyzed, explored and discussed openly. I mean, if there is no discourse but only denouncement how is one supposed to make a case for anything? There's this tendency in our increasingly liberal society (which I'm all for, btw) that any hot button issue should not even be remotely addressed and to give it the slightest bit of neutral, rational thought is seen as an offence. This is the kind of behavior that ridiculously got Lars von Trier banned from the Cannes film festival a little over a year ago only because he said he understood Hitler. Public discourse is at a major low at the moment and I see this spreading all over every major issue in modern society.

Zizek should know this better than most. As much as he'd like to think, morality is NOT self-evident and history has proven that countless times. There are people who carry out torture practices and governments who endorse them and there are also civilians who approve of them. I'm pretty sure some relatives of mine are pro-torture and pro-death penalty. These people exist and I'm not sure the most constructive way to address this issue is just denouncing it and thus declaring those who endorse it as morally abominable people.

I still don't know what Zero Dark Thirty does and doesn't do concerning this issue. But I'd much rather see a film that explores how and/or why people come to adopt a stance on torture rather than a film that simply denounces it and celebrates my "evolved moral standards".

[steve4922]

If that's indeed what's happened (and I'm inclined to think it is) I don't know why showing it (normalized, institutionalised torture) wouldn't be neutral?

So if, as a matter of fact and history, torture had become normalized and institutionalized in the CIA, that story should never be told because that sort of presentation would always be neutral on the issue of whether torture is approrpriate? It seems to me that's pretty clsoe to what Zizek is saying.

[Aurelius]

For instance, the three trades:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117948801/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mov.../review/393870

http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/t...049377.article

After the first batch of reviews for the film I stopped reading most reviews (not because of this, but because I already had an idea of how much it had been liked), but I have the distinct memory that only after the first denounce from someone from the CIA some reviews started talking about that. Still, I'm under the impression than around a 90% of the reviews in RT are like Variety's or Screendaily: Is it thrilling? is it tense? Is it well made from a craft POV? And it's, honestly, kinda revolting. Even if there wasn't any torture scene, it's like, damn, aren't you gonna say anything about WHAT it is about, the borderline illegal, sheriff-like, perhaps useless, hunt and killing of that man? Then, the torture denounce from someone from the CIA (don't know who started it) happened and only then some media with a more politics-oriented slant said something. But in the beginning it was like, "hello"?

The Variety and HR reviews indeed make no mention of it (which is wrong, in my opinion), but ScreenDaily addresses it rather directly:

This approach could lead to criticism that Bigelow is, in effect, supporting the use of, say, waterboarding — which is shown in the film — but that would misunderstand her larger point about the lengths in which American intelligence went to find the mastermind behind 9/11. By refusing to editorialise, she allows us to watch these events with an objectivity that forces the viewer to decide for himself about the moral complexities. And while Zero Dark Thirty is beautifully restrained — even the bravura raid on bin Laden’s compound is a model of precise, controlled moviemaking — there’s no question that the film’s final understated image hints at Bigelow’s own complicated feelings about this lengthy manhunt.

Also note that none of the three put a direct link between the torture and the finding of Bin Laden, and all three say this is not the kind of gung-ho filmmaking that you might expect for such a subject. The Variety guy actually seems to be disappointed by this, calling the ending anti-climactic (it is, and intentionally so).

[haqyunus]

I haven't read all of Zizek's article because I don't want to be even more spoiled about this movie than I already have by the relentless media coverage and controversy around it but I find his position to be kind of deeply dangerous, and especially coming from a philosopher. I mean, in his self-righteous and morally unimpeachable milieu, Zizek may see that anything that doesn't outright denounce and rather approaches a neutral position on torture is reprehensible but that doesn't mean there aren't people out there who feel differently about not only this subject but others such as rape, death penalty, nazism, etc. Those are BIG, SERIOUS issues and I think they should be able to be approached, analyzed, explored and discussed openly. I mean, if there is no discourse but only denouncement how is one supposed to make a case for anything? There's this tendency in our increasingly liberal society (which I'm all for, btw) that any hot button issue should not even be remotely addressed and to give it the slightest bit of neutral, rational thought is seen as an offence. This is the kind of behavior that ridiculously got Lars von Trier banned from the Cannes film festival a little over a year ago only because he said he understood Hitler. Public discourse is at a major low at the moment and I see this spreading all over every major issue in modern society.

Zizek should know this better than most. As much as he'd like to think, morality is NOT self-evident and history has proven that countless times. There are people who carry out torture practices and governments who endorse them and there are also civilians who approve of them. I'm pretty sure some relatives of mine are pro-torture and pro-death penalty. These people exist and I'm not sure the most constructive way to address this issue is just denouncing it and thus declaring those who endorse it as morally abominable people.

I still don't know what Zero Dark Thirty does and doesn't do concerning this issue. But I'd much rather see a film that explores how and/or why people come to adopt a stance on torture rather than a film that simply denounces it and celebrates my "evolved moral standards".

True. This reminds me something which late Susan Sontag said right after 9/11 about the act (which although many people have said as well, before and after, but not that close to.)

[McTeague]

So if, as a matter of fact and history, torture had become normalized and institutionalized in the CIA, that story should never be told because that sort of presentation would always be neutral on the issue of whether torture is approrpriate? It seems to me that's pretty clsoe to what Zizek is saying.

I'm saying exactly the opposite? If there's institutionalized torture, showing torture is institutionalised is not non-neutral (partial). I'm no saying it shouldn't be showed. I'm saying showing it doesn't mean endorsing it. You were saying that Bigelow is not neutral because she shows torture as something instituionalised. If torture is instituionalised indeed, showing it as such, as being instituionalised, is not necessarily partial to it.

And Au, I missed that Screendaily part, sorry. But you get the deal with THR and Variety. That's the tenor of most reviews up there in Rottentomatoes.

[steve4922]

I'm saying exactly the opposite? If there's institutionalized torture, showing torture is institutionalised is not non-neutral (partial). I'm no saying it shouldn't be showed. I'm saying showing it doesn't mean endorsing it. You were saying that Bigelow is not neutral because she shows torture as something instituionalised. If torture is instituionalised indeed, showing it as such, as being instituionalised, is not necessarily partial to it.

Sorry; I misunderstood what you were saying, but it sounds like we're in agreement on this point.

[Buster]

I haven't read all of Zizek's article because I don't want to be even more spoiled about this movie than I already have by the relentless media coverage and controversy around it ...

You mean you haven't seen the movie ?!?

First off, let me first refute Sage's once-again putting words in my mouth ... where have I "refused" to read any magazine, National Review or otherwise? I've not even "refused" to see ZD30, only that I don't want to based on B&B's previous film (much less add a dime to this film's coffers). I assume that I shall though someday, and then possibly even look back on how hyperbolic and wrong I was all along.

And I've enjoyed this discussion (despite the assholes) nevertheless ... it's very interesting to hear the wide divergence of opinions. Anyway back to the issue at hand ...

I have no doubt that Bigelow portrayed the torture in the film as realistically as possible based on what her CIA contacts fed her. I assume it's quite harrowing, as well it should be. I've no doubt that most everyone in this thread is against torture, no argument there. If Bigelow doesn't want to take a moral stand re. torture, that's her choice as an artist. The problem, from what I can glean, is that the filmmakers early on (before the controversy) touted the film as being as close to THE TRUTH as humanly possible. But that's always subjective, isn't it ... and as this film will likely be viewed by the masses as the definitive version of what went down, then one must be particularly heedful that the full picture is shown. Perhaps not to the film's viewers here, but many intelligent people have walked away saying that the film does imply that torture ( and the follow-up threat of more torture) led to key information in the hunt for Bin Laden. And who knows, despite what those with access to the classified information say (the Senators, etc.), maybe it did. But then, maybe it didn't. And if one is truly neutral (as the filmmakers contend), then isn't it their responsibility to also show that torture may have actually hindered the search? Equally? I've read that many here think that is the case ... who knows, we'll all have our own opinion on that I suppose. I guess that's the crux ... whether the film implies that torture was useful here. And as McTorquemada states, where is the discussion in the film about the morality of any of this, from the killing at the end on down? Of course I don't want a character standing on a soapbox extolling the evils of it all, but if you're going to imply in any way that torture is (was here) useful, I think you're obligated to show the opposing side as well. Especially when touting the film as THE TRUTH (or as close as possible).

Anyway, Alex Gibney says it much better than I ever could, in this video from Sundance ...



And some small "group" of 9/11 family members (who no doubt span the political spectrum) seem to be wrapping themselves in the flag, and flouting the First Amendment here, and state ...

... a stirring film which invokes feelings of patriotism and perseverance and honors our military, our country, and the victims of 9/11

Even that THR article starts out fairly one-sided, beginning with "Families of Sept. 11 victims... ", instead perhaps "Some families of Sept. 11 victims..." Ah well.

Oh, and in the interest of level-handedness, here's a post by Michael Moore (who Sage refuses to read), which makes good points, but misses the big picture in my opinion.

Anyway, I guess I need to go see Les Mis, which would bring me one step closer to seeing ZD30, which will likely then bring me back here ... in FULL RIGHTEOUS RANT mode !! Y'all don't really want that, do you ?

[steve4922]

Gibney says that the film shows that torture "always gets you the goods", and that's not what the movie shows at all. And Buster, how the hell can you know that Gibney gets it right when you haven't SEEN THE FUCKING MOVIE?

[Buster]

Fuckin' this, fuckin' that ... take your pills child. Some day maybe you'll even add something to the discussion at hand, instead of just ranting about lil' ol' me. I'm flattered that you like to make this all about Buster though.

I'm simpatico with Gibney's views on how issues like this should be portrayed, particularly when the filmmakers have touted the film's truthiness. I'm glad to learn from you though that the film did give equal emphasis to all the dead ends, useless information, wasted years, not to mention moral degradation that the torture produced. How could so many intelligent people have overlooked all this ?

[flibber]

I realize "funding a movie ticket for Buster so he can stop making wild assumptions about a movie he hasn't seen" isn't a creative project, but maybe Kickstarter would make an exception just this once.

[Sage]

Buster, as a heads up, no one else here is going to read my post and then yours and take me for the asshole. If "refused" is not the correct word I apologize, but you have spoken dismissively here about a number of publications before, and I was genuinely hoping that would not be the case here because I GENUINELY WANTED YOU TO READ THAT ARTICLE IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY BECAUSE I ACTUALLY THOUGHT YOU MIGHT ENJOY IT IF THAT IS SO TERRIBLE. Instead you hang yourself up on some small point THAT WASN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO MEAN ANYTHING and use it to dismiss the effort being made by others in this thread.

And now you are just insulting people. Stop it.

[Buster]

Buster, as a heads up, no one else here is going to read my post and then yours and take me for the asshole. If "refused" is not the correct word I apologize, but you have spoken dismissively here about a number of publications before, and I was genuinely hoping that would not be the case here because I GENUINELY WANTED YOU TO READ THAT ARTICLE IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY BECAUSE I ACTUALLY THOUGHT YOU MIGHT ENJOY IT IF THAT IS SO TERRIBLE. Instead you hang yourself up on some small point THAT WASN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO MEAN ANYTHING and use it to dismiss the effort being made by others in this thread.

And now you are just insulting people. Stop it.

Yes, mother.

Well, I'm glad you've downgraded your "Buster refuses to read..." diss to now "spoken dismissively" of. Progress! Remind me what those numerous publications are again ... I'm always forgetting, there are so many apparently.

Regardless, I'm glad to learn that you're a fan of Jane Mayer's New Yorker reporting. Except I guess on Zero Dark Thirty the subject of this thread, which I posted back in December. (So much for your snide Buster refuses to read the New Yorker jab. As a heads up, pay better attention next time, or better yet ... Stop it. )

It's funny, Mayer's 2007 criticism of 24 (a show made by someone who at least admits that he's a right-wing zealot) sounds remarkably consistent with her (and others I've quoted) ZD30 issues. Especially the highlighted parts below...

Throughout the series, secondary characters raise moral objections to abusive interrogation tactics. Yet the show never engages in a serious dialogue on the subject. Nobody argues that torture doesn’t work, or that it undermines America’s foreign-policy strategy. Instead, the doubters tend to be softhearted dupes. A tremulous liberal, who defends a Middle Eastern neighbor from vigilantism, is killed when the neighbor turns out to be a terrorist.

At least in 24 some secondary characters did raise moral objections to abusive interrogation tactics!

And recall how the army psychologist was portrayed in The Hurt Locker (softhearted dupe? tremulous liberal?), and that character's outcome. Anyway, this 'discussion' has become seriously tedious. Thanks for posting the old Jane Mayer article, and I'm glad you're a fan of her writing. I am too.

The office desk of Joel Surnow—the co-creator and executive producer of “24,” the popular counterterrorism drama on Fox—faces a wall dominated by an American flag in a glass case. A small label reveals that the flag once flew over Baghdad, after the American invasion of Iraq, in 2003.

[Bean]

I can't believe it took 7 weeks for Buster to whip out his terrible reading of the psychologist in The Hurt Locker! Shoulda shown up before Christmas.

[Sage]

Yes, I know that Jane Mayer does not like Zero Dark Thirty. I agree with her about torture, I agree with her about "24," I disagree with her about Zero Dark Thirty. I am allowed to do that. You said that you did not remember any of this controversy being kicked up over "24," so I linked that to you and thought you might find it interesting. If I knew of a Glenn Greenwald piece about "24," I likely would have linked to that as well. I can only assume he did not like it.

I apologize for not realizing that you had linked to a New Yorker article earlier in the thread. My offending comment was:

(Though I can't remember if The New Yorker is one of the publications Buster refuses to read?)

I legitimately couldn't remember. I then admitted that what I had it mixed up with were the opinions you've expressed about The New Republic. So I said:

Again, this was a failure of memory, and not an attempt on my part to insult you. I apologize for the mistake.

I will apologize for this mistake a third time: Buster, I am sorry. You are not an enemy of The New Yorker. But there are only a finite number of times I can apologize for something. I hope that you accept this and do not continue belaboring this point.

And yes, I asked you to stop being so insulting. Not as a mod, not as your "mother," but as a regular dude who legitimately finds it a little upsetting how much you continually seem to enjoy making a show of your obvious hatred for me. So, as a human being to another human being, please Buster, stop this.

[Buster]

Human to human, all I can say is ... wow. I challenge anyone to go back through this thread and tally up the times I've been directly insulted vs. the times I've directly insulted any poster here. Seriously, that's almost comical.

And Sage, I have no (as you say) "obvious hatred" for you. What I do object to is your continually putting words in my mouth to prove your point. I could care less about apologies, what I'd like is to see you stop this troubling habit, though I seriously doubt that will ever happen. In your supposed third apology, you yet again post that original BS that I refuse to read certain magazines, be it the New Yorker or the National Review. (Instead of 'apologizing' why not simply post where I said I refuse to read any magazine. Thank you.)

Like Bean (who'd much rather take a swipe at me than y'know actually discuss how THL's psychologist was portrayed), so many here seem to prefer attacking-the-poster rather than adding anything substantive to the conversation. It happens all the time (whether to McTeague, ldw, Zuranthium, whoever), and I suppose that's to be expected. It's definitely the easier route to go. To me it seems like there's a little group here who loves just stickin' it to me in lieu of actually defending their viewpoints on the subject, usually in one or two line posts. Y'all need to take a page from Aurelius' book ... he invariably discusses the meat of the conversation at hand, without feeling the need to belittle those of opposing views. He's secure like that.

And Bean I did mention THL's psychologist previously (as well as the foreign accented passenger who stands up in United 93) as an example of this type of characterization. I only brought it up again due to Sage's Mayer article where she comments on the softhearted dupes, tremulous liberals.

It's funny that Gibney in that video, uses almost the same wording that Mayer did in her '07 article. The part about ...

Yet the show [or ZD30] never engages in a serious dialogue on the subject. Nobody argues that torture doesn’t work, or that it undermines America’s foreign-policy strategy.

But let's not talk about that.

[hurricanesmith]

Human to human, all I can say is ... wow. I challenge anyone to go back through this thread and tally up the times I've been directly insulted vs. the times I've directly insulted any poster here. Seriously, that's almost comical.

And Sage, I have no (as you say) "obvious hatred" for you. What I do object to is your continually putting words in my mouth to prove your point. I could care less about apologies, what I'd like is to see you stop this troubling habit, though I seriously doubt that will ever happen. In your supposed third apology, you yet again post that original BS that I refuse to read certain magazines, be it the New Yorker or the National Review. (Instead of 'apologizing' why not simply post where I said I refuse to read any magazine. Thank you.)

Like Bean (who'd much rather take a swipe at me than y'know actually discuss how THL's psychologist was portrayed), so many here seem to prefer attacking-the-poster rather than adding anything substantive to the conversation. It happens all the time (whether to McTeague, ldw, Zuranthium, whoever), and I suppose that's to be expected. It's definitely the easier route to go. To me it seems like there's a little group here who loves just stickin' it to me in lieu of actually defending their viewpoints on the subject, usually in one or two line posts. Y'all need to take a page from Aurelius' book ... he invariably discusses the meat of the conversation at hand, without feeling the need to belittle those of opposing views. He's secure like that.

And Bean I did mention THL's psychologist previously (as well as the foreign accented passenger who stands up in United 93) as an example of this type of characterization. I only brought it up again due to Sage's Mayer article where she comments on the softhearted dupes, tremulous liberals.

It's funny that Gibney in that video, uses almost the same wording that Mayer did in her '07 article. The part about ...

But let's not talk about that.

Buster, if you don't stop trolling other members and this thread, you're going to get a week's ban.

HS