Zero Dark Thirty Two: Enhanced Filmmaking Techniques

[Artimus]

I think I've made clear I don't wat to discuss anything about the film if what I say is going to be ridiculed, which is all Artimus and Steve have made with my previous posts, which were as long-winded as yours. If some of you hadn't made it impossible to disagree with the notion that it's a perfect film beyond all reproach, ridiculing every small criticsm of it, I'd happily address your posts about the film.

You're too smart and have been around here too long for this. There is no post I make to you that thinks you are dumb. There is no moment I do not respect you. if I yell or am snarky it is not out of dislike or condescension but out of the intimacy that only friends who have spent years bickering can know. I (sometimes failing) try to take your hyperbole as enthusiasm for your opinion not anger or hatred. I intend my own posts towards you with the same good will. I like to think amongst those of us who have done battle at these forums for years that it is not necessary to preface every contradiction or disagreement with "I fully respect your POV, but..." However, do know that even in the most heated of moments I DO respect your POV. I do read thoroughly your posts and try to give them good will. As I do all friends I respect and especially those friends I love to have a good argument with.

And I mean all of that sincerely.

[steve4922]

You're too smart and have been around here too long for this. There is no post I make to you that thinks you are dumb. There is no moment I do not respect you. if I yell or am snarky it is not out of dislike or condescension but out of the intimacy that only friends who have spent years bickering can know. I (sometimes failing) try to take your hyperbole as enthusiasm for your opinion not anger or hatred. I intend my own posts towards you with the same good will. I like to think amongst those of us who have done battle at these forums for years that it is not necessary to preface every contradiction or disagreement with "I fully respect your POV, but..." However, do know that even in the most heated of moments I DO respect your POV. I do read thoroughly your posts and try to give them good will. As I do all friends I respect and especially those friends I love to have a good argument with.

And I mean all of that sincerely.

+1. McT, it's obvious that everyone around here respects you a lot. Your posts are intelligent, well written and very witty. And the fact that I tweak you now and then (which happens to us all on AD) doesn't mean that I intend to insult your intelligence or humiliate you. Yes, my responses to your references to JFK were rather snarky, but being snarky is part of the fun of this place. I'm sorry if you thought I crossed some sort of line with my posts, but I certainly did not intend them in that way.

[Habsburg]

I didn't overthink this one. It was an excellent watch, well directed, good acting, well paced. I was even nervous when they went in for the raid. I wasn't looking for a message, perphaps this is why I give it a broader leverage.

[McTeague]

You're too smart and have been around here too long for this. There is no post I make to you that thinks you are dumb. There is no moment I do not respect you. if I yell or am snarky it is not out of dislike or condescension but out of the intimacy that only friends who have spent years bickering can know. I (sometimes failing) try to take your hyperbole as enthusiasm for your opinion not anger or hatred. I intend my own posts towards you with the same good will. I like to think amongst those of us who have done battle at these forums for years that it is not necessary to preface every contradiction or disagreement with "I fully respect your POV, but..." However, do know that even in the most heated of moments I DO respect your POV. I do read thoroughly your posts and try to give them good will. As I do all friends I respect and especially those friends I love to have a good argument with.

And I mean all of that sincerely.

Yeah, sorry then. Your post didn't happen in a vacuum, but in a context in which it was not only you, but also sage and steve arguing in a way that it seemed that I wanted this to be, I don't know, a Costa Gavras didactic political film instead of a good political film. So, I got frustrated because I thought we weren't laying out some common ground to discuss, but instead reducing the ground of discussion to me having to make my words clearer so to not be laughed at. And the laughs may be well-intentioned, from each individual poster (I hardly ever take sarcasm bad), but I felt that was all there was. Maybe not from you, but since everything around went in the same direction ("the political film McTeague suggests would have been terrible and Costa Gavras-like") I got frustrated. Sorry for the overreaction. I'll take a deep breath and come another day for some more ZD30 debate. Thanks for the clarification, and my apologies again (and to steve too).

[Aurelius]

Do I deduce from the thread title that the sequel is going to be called ZD32?

[AllThisAndMrCecilToo]

I didn't overthink this one. It was an excellent watch, well directed, good acting, well paced. I was even nervous when they went in for the raid. I wasn't looking for a message, perphaps this is why I give it a broader leverage.

When those stealth helicopters are on the move, it's pretty amazing. Never for one moment of this film did I feel a feeling of elation, but it was gripping. Probably my favorite of the nominated films I've seen, though, lol, I'm still mad Moonrise Kingdom got snubbed. Outrage!

[steve4922]

One of the NY Times columnists, Roger Cohen, published a piece called "Why 'Zero Dark Thirty' Works":

In the end the case for the unacceptability of torture is not best made by sweeping assertions that it is useless. The nuance of this movie builds a much stronger case that, whatever torture’s marginal usefulness, it is morally indefensible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/op...-works.html?hp

[faina]

Whoever did marketing and PR for this film should be shot three times in the head.

[tututaya]

You're too smart and have been around here too long for this. There is no post I make to you that thinks you are dumb. There is no moment I do not respect you. if I yell or am snarky it is not out of dislike or condescension but out of the intimacy that only friends who have spent years bickering can know. I (sometimes failing) try to take your hyperbole as enthusiasm for your opinion not anger or hatred. I intend my own posts towards you with the same good will. I like to think amongst those of us who have done battle at these forums for years that it is not necessary to preface every contradiction or disagreement with "I fully respect your POV, but..." However, do know that even in the most heated of moments I DO respect your POV. I do read thoroughly your posts and try to give them good will. As I do all friends I respect and especially those friends I love to have a good argument with.

And I mean all of that sincerely.

without reading the back and forth and not knowing your history, I have to tell you that is a wonderful heartfelt apology. You are a great writer!

[steve4922]

Whoever did marketing and PR for this film should be shot three times in the head.

Yeah, the marketing wasn't good. But IMHO Bigelow and Boal also shot themsleves in the foot by referring to this as some sort of journalistic account. I know Boal conducted lots of interviews with people who were invovled in the hunt for UBL, but ZDT isn't journalism in the sense that news articles in a newspaper are journalism. Except in very unusual circumstances, no reputable newspaper would allow a reporter to use composite (or fictional) characters or made-up dialog in a news article.

[faina]

Yeah, the marketing wasn't good. But IMHO Bigelow and Boal also shot themsleves in the foot by referring to this as some sort of journalistic account. I know Boal conducted lots of interviews with people who were invovled in the hunt for UBL, but ZDT isn't journalism in the sense that news articles in a newspaper are journalism. Except in very unusual circumstances, no reputable newspaper would allow a reporter to use composite (or fictional) characters or made-up dialog in a news article.

Well, that's what PR people got paid buckets of money to manage carefully the promotional talks. There was strategic mistake made with marketing approach here. This whole "nuance" take on the subject should have been better sold to the intended audience, who do not speak "nuance language" and not "preaching to the converted".

[Artimus]

I don't blame Boal for taking that line. Considering the utter bullshit of a film like Argo I think it's sensible to try and emphasize you're at least interested in the spirit of an event.

[steve4922]

I don't blame Boal for taking that line. Considering the utter bullshit of a film like Argo I think it's sensible to try and emphasize you're at least interested in the spirit of an event.

Nobody cares about the factual accuracy of Argo. On the other hand, when I first read about ZDT, I knew it would be controversial, and surely Boal must have known that as well. While I think Bigelow and Boal would still have gotten crap from Feinstein et al. regardless of how the film was presented, IMHO the journalistic references did not help their cause particularly given the composite characters and the other liberties they took, which of course are entirely standard for any feature film.

[Sage]

Okay, this is just fucking hilarious.

[dyedred19]

I couldn't even read that.

[Sage]

Aw, and miss his attack on "film critics" and their complicity with the CIA and torture?

Take that Scott Tobias!

[Yuna]

I loved this film. Chastain was excellent (although IMO the role was far from Oscar worthy), the direction was great and I thought the pacing was fine. I know a lot of people thought the first half hour dragged, but I disagree.

My biggest gripe with the film was the depiction of the 7/7 bombings in London. I didn't like that they only focused on the bus and completely ignored the other 3 bombs that went off that day in the underground. I know it was only a small part of the movie, but that didn't sit well with me.

And I'm not surprised it was accused of being pro-torture. I mean, it wasn't obviously, but that scene with Obama on the TV talking about torture is probably what done it.

[Bean]

Okay, this is just fucking hilarious.

I saw his face and could go no further.

[Mmelissa]

Okay, this is just fucking hilarious.

I'm actually glad that it won essentially half of an award, for sound editing, as that's somehow more cruel than if it just won nothing

How awesome would it be if they snapped Oscars in half for ties? Would you want the weighted part with your name, or the tiny little golden man? Decisions, decisions.

[Sage]

I saw his face and could go no further.

Honestly the self-satisfied sanctimony typically drives me nuts, but in this case it's just taken to an art. Like, I can't even be mad anymore, it just hits a degree that is honestly impressive.

And what's extra special is the deep irony that he's taking a victory lap regarding ZD30's Oscar failure when the film that won was ARGO.