Zero Dark Thirty - Anticipation/Discussion Thread

serious question: would it even be possible to film UBL's death without 'allowing you to cheer' for it?

if the death were shot by Bela Tarr.

jd, that's true, but why are we filming it in the first place?

the problem with saying "definitive opinion" is that, yeah, this isn't necessarily rambo. i can say by using terrorist events as the impetus for flash-forwards, the film suggests that bad things are going to keep happening if The Job isn't Done, even if we have ish with how it got done. But you might say oh yes, the lead character says that, but through long shots I sense a certain anguished distance from the sentiment. People have political beef with the narrative the film presents because it simplifies a complicated issue. and while some say "judge it as a movie," honestly i don't see much argument for the value of the movie outside of its zeitgeist-tapping.

Gukbe, the problem with saying this is "terrible" CIA propaganda is that it depends what the goal is. If it's saying the CIA are a bunch of awesome guys that don't do gross things, yeah it's bad. but if the goal is grim acceptance of what we did in the '00s, it looks like it's working quite well.

But I think the film leaves that "grim acceptance" up in the air, which is pretty much the opposite effect propaganda is meant to have.

so this sounds like United 93 shot by Kathryn Bigelow? That film had no value outside vague propaganda.

Except that film was a clear construction of a moral good. This one is trickier.

gukbe they might not be "accepting" the excusability of the actions, but they're accepting the narrative

They're presenting a narrative.

if anything, when pundits get uptight about zdt, fans of the movie should be glad. they're doing it the favor of assuming it might actually sway someone to accept the film's logic and let it shade their perception of our foreign policy. if you're saying "bah, it couldn't do that" then i have to ask what the hell it could do other than be CSI: Pakistan.

croup i think perhaps the big sin of the film (on my interp of it) is that it's offering an aesthetically motivated, and quite mournful, depiction of self-alienation and ethical compromise and a sly critique of groupthink (i personally don't think it's even ambiguous on these points) at a moment when generating outrage is perhaps the more urgent task politically and ethically speaking. but for me it's all the more relevant for not placing itself in political or ethical terms (it doesn't have to take "sides") because by doing so frees itself to observe, yes, ethics and politics by not being part of those discourses.

it's trying, successfully or not, to offer a different perspective to better discuss and understand these things.

but it's not a different perspective, it's conventional wisdom found in just about every crime procedural. you can find that shit in batman. zdt just says it's based on a true story.

are you saying you wish the film had be more explicitly anti-torture and anti-extra judicial killings or less explicit and more, say, avant garde and open to interpretation. (imagining a Bela Tarr shot raid sequence now...)

personally i don't think it should have been made.

but then what would we have to argue about on ilx

peace would guide new answers
and love would steer the boards

i think god spared me to argue about this on a message board

wait are you mark wahlberg?

I have no problem with the action scene leading people to "cheer for the death of Osama" (if they do) - I thought the raid was done extremely well, as non-rah rah as you could make an action sequence with DEVGRU and super-copters and all
people are going to cheer the death of someone we all agree is evil, that's just a given

It's the link between that and "torture got us here" that's problematic.

J. Hoberman: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jan/18/zero-dark-thirty-us-election

Chastain doesn't do much for me, but my wife thinks she's, like, stunningly beautiful.

Not sure where she falls on the girls girls hate when u think theyre hot / girls girls love when u think theyre hot spectrum.

Dem 'centrists' circling the wagons

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/movies/hollywood-makes-its-case-for-zero-dark-thirty.html

Christopher J. Dodd, the president of the Motion Picture Association of America, raised a warning on Friday for those who are calling for investigations into the film.

“There could, in my view, be a chilling effect if, in the end of all this, you have a screenwriter or a director called before an investigating committee,” Mr. Dodd said. He stressed that he was speaking for himself rather than for the association’s member studios, including Sony Pictures, which released “Zero Dark Thirty.”

Mr. Dodd, who served five terms in the Senate before retiring in 2010, said he could not recall another movie being so heavily scrutinized by the government. He expressed concern that the military or other government agencies that have routinely helped filmmakers might withhold future cooperation rather than risk similar pressure.

“ ‘JFK’ and ‘All the President’s Men’ were controversial,” Mr. Dodd said, noting that neither of those films seemed to draw the same level of attention from lawmakers.....

After the Golden Globes, Mr. Boal flew to Europe to promote “Zero Dark Thirty” as it opened in Britain and France.

In a series of e-mails, Mr. Boal said he found the reception to the movie there to be “much smoother” than in the United States.

European interviewers appeared to regard the torture controversy more as a reckoning among Americans than as something that directly involved them, he said.

saw this last night and it left not much impression on me honestly.

it's very much the CIA's view of itself presented in a grim, heavy way

i was supposed to watch it today but I'm content with Richard Blanco alluding to "silent drones" on rooftops.

Was distracted early on by the lead interrogator's 2011 hipster dtyle: beard, ironic "bro"s and all. First 30 mins least convincing, but otherwise into it.

The most obscene defence of the film is the claim that Bigelow rejects cheap moralism and soberly presents the reality of the anti-terrorist struggle, raising difficult questions and thus compelling us to think (plus, some critics add, she "deconstructs" feminine cliches – Maya displays no sentimentality, she is tough and dedicated to her task like men). But with torture, one should not "think". A parallel with rape imposes itself here: what if a film were to show a brutal rape in the same neutral way, claiming that one should avoid cheap moralism and start to think about rape in all its complexity? Our guts tell us that there is something terribly wrong here; I would like to live in a society where rape is simply considered unacceptable, so that anyone who argues for it appears an eccentric idiot, not in a society where one has to argue against it. The same goes for torture: a sign of ethical progress is the fact that torture is "dogmatically" rejected as repulsive, without any need for argument.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/zero-dark-thirty-normalises-torture-unjustifiable

Writer has never seen Straw Dogs.

i'm assuming that this will be as dull and self-impressed as hurt locker tbh, not much chance i'll bother

Irreversible, too. xp

It's not as if Straw Dogs or Irreversible were "neutral" on rape. Both showed horrific psychological damage inflicted and both had the rapists' brains splattered around the floor by the end of the film.

seriously

spoiler?

rapists' brains splattered on the floor

Not an Irreversible spoiler. Story told backwards, guy killed in first scene.

Look away now if you don't want to know what happens at the end of The Virgin Spring, I Spit On Your Grave or Last House On The Left.

The only film i can call to mind that could be interpreted as being relatively neutral on rape is Once Upon A Time In America but even that would be controversial.

Once Upon A Time in America is almost like the end-point of a certain...tendency...in Italian (exploitation) cinema to treat rape as a)sexy funtimes, b)a subject for humour, c)as a delusion on the part of the victim or d)as a rite of passage that will actually led to sexual liberation (eg the treatment of rape in Once Upon a Time in the West and A Fistful of Dynamite is equally problematic.) Some of these attitudes are also pretty common in 60s and 70s British and American exploitatio movies, too - I'm thinking of the work of auteurs like Lee Frost or the Findlays - but was not uncommon even in more mainstream fare, like Coogan's Bluff, where Clint Eastwood is allowed to raise a smirk at the idea that an unattractive older woman could be a rape victim.

rape could conceivably be used in a program of torture, which shows that the two aren't comparable categories. the whole point of the debate is about torture - of any type - being a means to an end and whether the end justifies those means.

after thinking about it and reading about it, i'm glad that the movie suggests that torture can sometimes yield actionable intelligence, yes even if it bends the facts of the hunt for osama bin laden. because even if it wasn't true in this case, surely it's occasionally true, which forces the moral question. it's all quite easy if nobody ever gave up anything valuable during one of the hundreds of torture sessions instigated by the CIA (yes after 9/11 but also for decades, in iran, in guatemala, etc). good drama doesn't avoid the difficulty of what to do if, in fact, some morsel IS gleaned from torture. then you've got a dilemma. then you've got drama. then you go through the difficulty.

i mean it's hackneyed, but it's a classic pulp situation: a madman has his finger on the button and tells you that if you agree to kill your own daughter he'll spare manhattan. what do you do??? the critics seem to suggest a better situation would involve the hero telling the villain that his daughter has been rigged so that killing her will instantly disable the bomb. problem solved!

ok maybe that analogy doesn't work. i knew my ignorance of comic books would come back to bite me someday.

That's what Zizek is objecting to. For him, and for the United Nations, torture isn't a debate, it's a clear moral and legal wrong in the same way as rape or genocide. Putting it on the table as a grey area encourages us to think outside of a box that the civilised nations of the world have already agreed (publicly at least) should not be opened. The analogy to rape isn't necessarily a false one.

wait, torture isn't a debate? then what are we talking about? zizek can pretend none of that is happening, that a huge number of americans don't apparently believe that torture is a-ok as long as it gets the bad guys, but then what? declare victory and go home, i guess?

He's despairing at the fact that it's apparently become a debate the government and media engages in publicly, rather than a shameful secret they are desperate to keep away from view. He might be swimming against the tide of US public opinion but he has the law all governments are bound to abide by on his side.

i read a novel a couple of years ago that i found on a friend's mother's bookshelf, some old sub-graham greene british thing from the 40s by someone i doubt anyone has thought about for decades, and the plot turned on the heroine's father, who was a military commander in some un-named dusty north african place, torturing someone. the fact that he had done this (well, not done it himself, but ordered it) was deemed so explosive that it was understood without explanation that if it were ever brought to light it would be his professional ruin and by association stain her as well. it seemed to come from some hopelessly irretrievable place.

well, it did: your friend's mom's bookshelf.

But the issue of whether torture is a moral right or wrong has absolutely nothing to do with whether it works or not. You could argue that it exaggerates the effectiveness of torture (though it does highlight the many intelligence failings of the US during the torture era), but I don't see how it endorses torture from a moral standpoint. I think that Guardian article is a huge stretch.

For example, my wife left the theater more opposed to torture than she entered it.

I agree, which is why I think most of the criticism levelled at the movie misses the mark

that's pretty consistent with reactions from everyone i've talked to irl abt the movie so far; they've left the theater with whatever they already believed reinforced

the criticism that hits the mark is that it's as close to a state-sponsored film as you'll see in your multiplex.

also it's one thing when a film like Moneyball ends up dramatizing recent events in a way that Just. Didn't. Happen, and another when it's this.

OTM. the plot isn't really too different from "Trouble With the Curve" or something