Zero Dark Thirty - Anticipation/Discussion Thread

good read, thanks gubke

Senators weigh in: http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/zero-dark-thirty-grossly-inaccurate-senators-tell-sony/

The use of torture should be banished from serious public discourse for these reasons alone, but more importantly, because it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, because it is an affront to America’s national honor, and because it is wrong. The use of torture in the fight against terrorism did severe damage to America’s values and standing that cannot be justified or expunged. It remains a stain on our national conscience.

this is sort of gratifying to read

more than sort of tbh

the capitulations Feinstein and McCain made that enabled the policies in question make it ring a little more hollow than I would like

Christopher Hayes ‏@chrislhayes
Saw Zero Dark 30. Good lord. Have lots of thoughts, which I'll save for our discussion w/ @ggreenwald @attackerman @hinashamsi on Sat.

oh man

Hot damn!

hot man!

zero dark mercy!

kind of odd that the New Yorker paired up the reviews for Zero Dark Thirty and This Is 40

next week's double feature, 50/50 and Gone in 60 Seconds

kind of odd that the New Yorker paired up the reviews for Zero Dark Thirty and This Is 40

Don't worry: David Denby and his pellucid insights were on display.

Chris Hayes: the film inspired "moral revulsion" in him and it "colludes with evil."

where was this discussion?

going on now on Chris Hayes' show.

it woulda helped if Hayes had invited a film critic though

our boy Greenwald is on there too

Oh ffs

Alex Gibney lays out ZD30's pro-torture slant as methodically as I've seen it:

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/22/zero_dark_thirty_is_indefensible/

i saw this!

and?

its too long

good talk lol

hour in, and this is kinda boring

(viewing a screener, fyi)

a pair of law & order detectives (one a spunky redhead, one a charming brutalist) team up with the hand-held camera from Friday Night Lights to catch Bin Laden. Since I know they do, the only thing keeping me going is the alleged eventuality of Chris Pratt.

The film's tech virtues need the big screen.

i didnt get bored till after abt 2 hours

pratt is good but you just want him to be andy dwyer. he has one classic line tho

gave up at 1h30 when committed+spunky's new boss did the "i learned from my predecessor not to disagree with you" thing zzzz

i've now seen two of the three Government's Gotta Do What A Government's Gotta Do Oscar movies. Preferred Lincoln, but I bet I'll be on Team Argo in the end.

The film's tech virtues need the big screen.

Yeach co-sign on this, not surprised it was a patience-tester on a TV.

I don't know from a fucking C Pratt sitcom, he was a hot Scott Hatteberg.

Argo is a worse movie than this, and just about as evil.

morbs otm

aw, i was hoping it would be the "comedy = tragedy + time" entry in this year of US government retrospectives

More like comedy and tragedy fill time.

That's the puncture of funny.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/from-the-wire-critics-and-morally-engaged-viewers

I liked this a lot, and was honestly strongly emotionally effected by it. It's a deeply mournful film--almost a funeral dirge. We start in blackness and bare panic and suffering and open in a literal torture chamber. Tellingly, there is a shot where the audience is shut inside a box. We end in billowing black clouds and non-cathartic grief. "Do you know what you just did?"

Also, a very suggestive idea of "risk" seems to be at play. UBL hunt compared to Iraq WMD, both at 60% certainly. Interesting question raised as to what makes the calculation of risk on either side more ethical. A very troubling movie, intentionally so I think.

have you read the thread?

Yes. Did I miss something I should read again?

only that the movie troubles us

Indeed! Only pointlessly throwing in my belated two cents. Maybe more than "troubling" I mean it seems like a profoundly troubled movie. It's an open wound, UBL seems to stand more for a lost chance at restitution than eye for eye justice. As in the Obama clip which is so pointedly ignored, it's about "moral standing" and the lack thereof.

not belated, most people still haven't seen it

I was going to link to the Reverse Shot review by Reichert that is commented on in Eric's link; he gets at what I find morally troubling and irresponsible.

from that Reichert piece:

What’s perhaps worse and more damning is a later scene where, for little apparent narrative reason, the small group working the bin Laden case sits around a conference room table while an NBC interview with a recently elected Barack Obama plays in the background. In that interview, Obama definitively states his opposition to torture; in the foreground of the frame, Maya’s hardened colleague Jessica (Jennifer Ehle) shakes her head as if to suggest the president’s ignorance—she’s been in the field, he hasn’t. If Bigelow and Boal want to insist they haven’t made a movie that validates torture morally, that’s fine. But to label it apolitical, as they have repeatedly done, either suggests willful mendacity or ignorance. Their film quite clearly stakes out a position on one of the more controversial political questions of the last decade in American politics, and soon it will be making its case several times a day on thousands of screens around the country. Greenwald’s writings on the film may hyperventilate, but when one considers the scale of the historical rewrite we’re about to witness, his pitched tenor is more forgivable. Maybe “propaganda” isn’t so far off the mark after all.

it's funny the "this is journalism" tag is really (for me) an aesthetically defensive gesture to protect themselves against just this kind of reading that insists the movie must have some position on torture's efficacy or morality--it's a movie about dehumanization and trauma, and only in that respect doest it really relate to the (very important, of course) legal and ethical arguments about torture.

i mean, if anything, the movie i saw goes to great lengths to repudiate the bush administration and its handling of torture and the iraq war. but even more it sees that period not as some regrettable lapse that obama set right but something far darker and irreversible. i think the movie sees its "journalism" claim (falsely) as its best means of making that case without being slotted into predictable "political" discourse. it would be better if it said "this is art and therefore worth taking seriously" but that's just not the discourse we have sadly.

to put a finer point on what i am clumsily trying to say: i'd argue that the "based on first hand accounts" and "this is journalism" stuff works, in this movie at least, as an invitation for the audience to make actual judgments (moral and otherwise) about what they are seeing--it's marking an (fully artificial) non-political space in which to better critique political judgments.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/zero-dark-thirty-is-not-pro-torture/266759/