Zero Dark Thirty

Started by Fernando, August 06, 2012, 11:41:40 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MacGuffin

"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

samsong

this was pretty good. 

couldn't help but think of homeland as this started out (chilly white female cia operative in the field, yadda yadda) but that quickly dissolved with the sustained brute frankness of its portrayal of the "detainee program".  from that point on, though, there's a lot of hand holding (ie REALLY stupid use of intertitles, though as with her previous film, there's not one iota of context provided for the actual title of the film) and much of the drama in the film is diffused.  rather than really giving a sense of the exhaustive, draining, and undoubtedly confusing nature of the manhunt (i kept wishing tomas alfredson, fresh off of tinker tailor solider spy had made this instead), it plays out more like an outline of significant beats with dramatizations.  it moves along at breakneck speed, somewhat of a dubious credit to bigelow since it, in my mind, betrays the material tonally.  intellectually it can be seen as servicing the intent but that aspect seemed farily obvious from the get go, and wasn't something that needed was much reinforcing or emphasis as much as how the film feels.  there are thrills to be had and bigelow has proved herself an expert crafts(wo)man at set pieces and action, but the film is slightly less than the sum of its parts.  certainly a pretty damn good movie, but i feel like there's a better one that could've come from this story.  the final act is a doozy and the way it's handled emotionally is spot on.

in other news, pain & gain (for which there was a trailer before zero dark thirty, so this isn't totally irrelevant) looks AMAZING.

MacGuffin

Senators Call 'Zero Dark Thirty' 'Grossly Inaccurate' in Letter to Sony Pictures
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other say the film's depiction of torture is "factually inaccurate," urging Sony to add a disclaimer to the movie.
Source: THR

A bipartisan group of senior U.S. Senators who have seen the new film Zero Dark Thirty sent a letter Wednesday to the movie's distributor, Sony Pictures, calling the picture "grossly inaccurate and misleading" for suggesting that intelligence obtained through torture played a role in locating Osama bin Laden.

The movie, a reconstruction by director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal of the decade-long pursuit and killing of the al-Qaida kingpin by the CIA and U.S. Navy SEALs, already has received critical acclaim from the New York Film Critics Circle and others and is widely viewed as an Oscar contender.

The film begins with an extended depiction of American interrogators waterboarding an accused terrorist, and many have argued that the film suggests that intelligence gleaned from that session and others produced information that led U.S. operatives to an al-Qaida courier who ultimately provided the location of bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has seen Zero Dark Thirty, calls that suggestion entirely false. She and the other Senators urge Sony, which is releasing the film, to add a disclaimer on the film.

"Zero Dark Thirty is factually inaccurate, and we believe that you have an obligation to state that the role of torture in the hunt for Osama bin Laden is not based on the facts, but rather part of the film's fictional narrative," reads the letter, addressed to Sony Pictures Entertainment chairman and CEO Michael Lynton.

Bigelow and Boal have said in a statement that their film is not political and does not take a position on whether torture led to the location and killing of bin Laden:

"This was a 10-year intelligence operation brought to the screen in a two-and-a-half-hour film. We depicted a variety of controversial practices and intelligence methods that were used in the name of finding bin Laden. The film shows that no single method was necessarily responsible for solving the manhunt, nor can any single scene taken in isolation fairly capture the totality of efforts the film dramatizes. One thing is clear: The single greatest factor in finding the world's most dangerous man was the hard work and dedication of the intelligence professionals who spent years working on this global effort. We encourage people to see the film before characterizing it."

Feinstein was joined in the letter by Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Senate Armed Service Committee Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.).

McCain, a former GOP presidential candidate who was tortured by the North Vietnamese while held as a prisoner of war, told the Associated Press that he was "sickened" by the movie. McCain said the filmmakers had fallen for false claims by apologists for torture.

Feinstein, Levin and McCain all told The Hill that torture—euphemistically labeled by its defenders as "enhanced interrogation" — played no role whatsoever in leading the CIA to bin Laden, an assertion they forcefully repeated in their letter to the studio.

"We write to express our deep disappointment with the movie Zero Dark Thirty," the lawmakers wrote. "We believe the film is grossly inaccurate and misleading in its suggestion that torture resulted in information that led to the location of Osama bin Laden.

The letter continues:

"We understand that the film is fiction, but it opens with the words 'based on first-hand accounts of actual events' and there has been significant media coverage of the CIA's cooperation with the screenwriters. As you know, the film graphically depicts CIA officers repeatedly torturing detainees and then credits these detainees with providing critical lead information on the courier that led to Osama bin Laden. Regardless of what message the filmmakers intended to convey, the movie clearly implies that the CIA's coercive interrogation techniques were effective in eliciting important information related to a courier for Osama bin Laden. We have reviewed CIA records and know that this is incorrect. Zero Dark Thirty is factually inaccurate, and we believe that you have an obligation to state that the role of torture in the hunt for Osama bin Laden is not based on the facts, but rather part of the film's fictional narrative."

In the letter, the three senior lawmakers cite a recently approved 6,000-page classified report on interrogation tactics by the Senate Intelligence Committee that they say found waterboarding and other techniques regarded as torture by the international community produced no actionable intelligence. The exhaustive report required three years to complete and was approved by the committee on a 9-6 vote.

The senators write:

"The CIA did not first learn about the existence of the Osama bin Laden courier from CIA detainees subjected to coercive interrogation techniques. Nor did the CIA discover the courier's identity from detainees subjected to coercive techniques. No detainee reported on the courier's full name or specific whereabouts, and no detainee identified the compound in which Osama bin Laden was hidden. Instead, the CIA learned of the existence of the courier, his true name and location through means unrelated to the CIA detention and interrogation program ...

"The CIA detainee who provided the most significant information about the courier provided the information prior to being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques."

The lawmakers also cite a letter to McCain from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta categorically stating that "... no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier's full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means."

Feinstein, McCain and Levin conclude the letter to Sony by saying:

"We are fans of many of your movies, and we understand the special role that movies play in our lives, but the fundamental problem is that people who see Zero Dark Thirty will believe that the events it portrays are facts. The film therefore has the potential to shape American public opinion in a disturbing and misleading manner. Recent public opinion polls suggest that a narrow majority of Americans believe that torture can be justified as an effective form of intelligence gathering. This is false. We know that cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners is an unreliable and highly ineffective means of gathering intelligence ...

"(W)ith the release of Zero Dark Thirty, the filmmakers and your production studio are perpetuating the myth that torture is effective. You have a social and moral obligation to get the facts right ..."
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Alexandro

are we to believe there was no torture involved in the search for osama bin laden?
who are these guys kidding?

Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Alexandro on December 20, 2012, 09:38:12 AM
are we to believe there was no torture involved in the search for osama bin laden?
who are these guys kidding?

What gives you the impression that torture was helpful in finding Bin Laden?

Alexandro

I don't know if it was helpful, but I wouldn't believe it wasn't applied. Haven't seen the movie, but I've read according to Bigelow and Boal that the film shows a number of tactics used (including torture) not pointing one in particular as solely responsible of finding Bin Laden.

That said...I believe every government uses torture under the radar for different ends, and I think is naive to believe otherwise. In the case of finding Bin Laden, I had always assumed it. I still do.

Jeremy Blackman

I'm sure torture was used somewhere along the line, since the search for bin Laden has been going on for so long. Whether it helped catch bin Laden is anyone's guess, and based on what we actually know empirically about torture, it's unlikely.

So yes, it's completely irresponsible to give the impression that torture probably helped us find bin Laden. I'll reserve actual judgment until I see the movie, but from what I've heard so far, it doesn't sound good.

If the film actually does present torture as one among many tools in our arsenal, that creates a dangerous false equivalency. We should never forget the wrongness of torture (assuming you believe that), nevermind the illegality of it, particularly since the public's impressions of how it works (and how well it works) come almost exclusively from far-fetched fiction.

Alexandro

I agree that torture is wrong of course. And I'll reserve judgement of it's portrayal in this film until I see it. Just as a hypothetical first impression, if someone told me there's a film about the 10 year search and final capture (murder) of Bin Laden from the point of view of a group of C.IA. agents where torture is never mentioned as something that happened, I would find the whole thing hard to believe.

Jeremy Blackman

Yeah I think we pretty much agree.

If I were making the movie, I would describe someone being waterboarded and deprived of sleep until they make something up, leading investigators down a dead end and generally screwing everything up. That is the context for torture that most conforms to reality and what we actually know.

This is interesting:

http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/dec/14/zero-dark-thirty/

pete

from huffpo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/erin-brockovich-for-fasci_b_2334324.html

Erin Brockovich for Fascists


I suppose Zero Dark Thirty is going to win the Oscar for Best Picture, and that's the last anyone will hear of it. (Unless they pick Lincoln. Or Silver Linings Playbook, although violent, crazy loners got considerably less loveable late last week.) Zero Dark Thirty is the best-reviewed American movie of 2012, but no one who sees the thing is going to recommend it to anyone. It's plodding and grim (and long) if you like that sort of thing, and apparently critics do. Christopher Orr at the Atlantic says it's

Utterly authentic!
Enthralling!
Extraordinary! (2x)
Journalistic!
Meticulous! (2x)
Morally complicated!
Powerful!
Stunning!
Sprawling!
Troubling!
Vital!
Urgent!

Heavens to Betsy! And it's also a "tour de force" and "If The Hurt Locker cracked the door on (director Kathryn Bigelow's) cinematic gifts, Zero Dark Thirty kicks it wide open!" Which is the kind of writing adults generally eschew, lest they come off sounding like it's their first night in the big city.

It's also about as morally complicated as Julie & Julia. When this redhead gets an idea in her head (kill Muslims/make Beef Bourguignon) watch out! She won't take no for an answer!

(One of the small comforts in Zero Dark Thirty is that we don't see our goal-oriented heroine's home life. So we're spared the utterly thankless cute boyfriend character who supports her, then arbitrarily doesn't ("Can't you ever stop torturing people? This birthday meant a lot to me!") and then does again. See The Devil Wears Prada, J&J, every other movie with a woman in the workplace in the last 15 years.)

Woman gets idea, men don't listen, she doesn't back down, it turns out she's right.

And that's okay, too. There's nothing wrong with that movie. But it ain't urgent.

And when you apply the tropes of the genre to a movie that starts with a tragedy and leads to torture and assassination, it's kind of nauseating.

Zero Dark Thirty contains:

The scene where our heroine arrives at the office with high hopes but gets a crummy desk in a crappy corner.

The scene where she wants to do something but the boss gives her a Huge File of Things to do first.

The scene where she steps on another woman's toes... but then they become friends.

The scene where she tells her boss if she doesn't get to follow her gut she's going over his head.

The scene where she goes to the big meeting but doesn't get to sit at the table... but speaks up anyway!

I'm not saying these things didn't happen in real life. I'm just saying they also happened in Legally Blonde II.

--

A very long time ago, George Kaufman imagined Warner Brothers buying the rights to the Theory of Relativity and making it into a movie with Joan Blondell called Gold Diggers at College. Here's the pitch:

"... it's a very tough theory and, and there's never been a girl that's been able to understand it... and finally along comes a girl, attractive, of course, and says, "I am going to understand it"... So she pitches in and goes to work. She won't go to parties or dances or anything and she wears horn-rimmed glasses, and the boys think she's a grind and hasn't got any sex appeal. Underneath, of course, she's a regular girl..."

And it was funny in 1938, because it was so lame.

Did I say lame? I meant "vital."

--

The critics who love Zero Dark Thirty praise it for not taking a position, one way or the other, on torture and murder. Like that's a good thing, and not the moral equivalent of Saw. But Zero Dark Thirty does take a position. No one innocent gets tortured. No one who isn't bad gets killed, except by bad guys. The torturers and murderers -- our torturers and murderers -- aren't changed by doing what they do; they just become more determined. No one fucks up, except by letting their guard down, or by not listening to Extralegally Blonde. It's like Paul Fussell's description of Herman Wouk novels -- "their audience being untrained in irony, there are few blunders and errors and everyone does what he's supposed to do, with minimal chickenshit. Result: Victory." With apologies to Christopher Orr, it's the very opposite of "troubling." Our black sites are full of bad people, our hit squads never kill women or children when they can possibly help it, and the law is barely a technicality, and that's a good thing for everyone, especially women in the workplace.

It's not just vile, it's childish.

And going on about how deep it is just makes you sound like a boob.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

ono

Well, duh.  I coulda told you that from the moment I heard they were making a movie about this.  Can we please have a female filmmaker who's, y'know, actually relevant?

polkablues

Quote from: ono on December 20, 2012, 11:41:24 PM
Can we please have a female filmmaker who's, y'know, actually relevant?

Sure.  Lynn Shelton, Lone Sherfig, Miranda July, Lynne Ramsay, Debra Granik, Catherine Hardwicke, Claire Denis, Isabel Coixet, Lena Dunham, Andrea Arnold, Sarah Polley, Catherine Breillat, Sofia Coppola (for better or worse), Kimberly Peirce, Mary Harron, Nicole Holofcener, Kasi Lemmons... I'm sure there's a ton that I'm missing.
My house, my rules, my coffee

Jeremy Blackman

Julie Taymor. Titus is one of my all-time favorites.

ono

Quote from: polkablues on December 21, 2012, 12:15:14 AM
Quote from: ono on December 20, 2012, 11:41:24 PM
Can we please have a female filmmaker who's, y'know, actually relevant?

Sure.  Lynn Shelton, Lone Sherfig, Miranda July, Lynne Ramsay, Debra Granik, Catherine Hardwicke, Claire Denis, Isabel Coixet,
July and Ramsay are the only ones worth a shit and they've only each made one worthwhile film (haven't seen Kevin).

QuoteLena Dunham
You're fucking kidding me, right?

Quote, Andrea Arnold, Sarah Polley, Catherine Breillat, Sofia Coppola (for better or worse), Kimberly Peirce, Mary Harron, Nicole Holofcener, Kasi Lemmons... I'm sure there's a ton that I'm missing.
Coppola made one great movie, a dud, and one I haven't seen yet.  Breillat is a misandrist and loves to shock.  I respect her for pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable in film, but she's hardly relevant and hasn't been for a long while.

Point to JB for Taymor, but c'mon, polka, really?

polkablues

Sorry, I misread your original quote.

Quote from: ono on December 20, 2012, 11:41:24 PM
Can we please have a female filmmaker who's, y'know, actually relevant to my specific tastes?

Seriously.  You crossed off a lot of really great directors right off the bat.
My house, my rules, my coffee