Zero Dark Thirty - Anticipation/Discussion Thread

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

i liked the little echo of the torture scenes when the seals are asking the wives and kids to confirm that the dead guy is bin laden, and they won't answer - was half wondering if they were going to start torturing them

What's the problem with it being "state sponsored" considering the end result? And what does the multiplex have to do with anything?

the end result? what?

an oscar?

I'd rather ppl not waste money on a docudrama that gets its 'history' primarily from the CIA's mouth.

Why not given the film, which is hardly (for me) an endorsement of the CIA.

Read an interesting article, and this is as good a place to share it as any.

Worth noting that in historical experience, whether torture can yield intelligence is fairly irrelevant compared to its negative effects outside the torture chamber. This 2004 Salon artcle describes how torture helped the French win the Battle of Algiers, and also how it caused them to lose Algeria. In counter-terrorism, counter-insurgency, and police work, the most important resource is informants, who cease further collaboration once authority is seen as palpably evil. It forces people in the middle to choose extremes.

I think it would be possible to portray that sort of reality in a long ensemble film or miniseries (like Stephen Gaghan's screenplays), but one of Bigelow's protagonist following character dramas can't do the subject justice. Its just too narrow.

yeah. perhaps the ultimate example in this conversation being sayyid qutub, bin laden's idol and inspiration, who became radicalized only after... being tortured by CIA and CIA-trained goons in iran. whoops!

sorry, i mean egypt. god, you think you have a good point to make and then you get the whole country wrong.

i still don't get the logic where it's not CIA propaganda because everyone just walks away believing what they already believed, but it's somehow still a worthwhile movie even though it doesn't actually inform or shed light on anything

"you'll come away exactly as you came in! five stars!"

i mean i guess you could say it's simply a ripping yarn

I don't at all agree "walks away believing what they already believed" -- how do you know? That gushy woman in the screening elevator I described now thinks there was a heroine named Maya who made hotels and office buildings everywhere safe from Al Qaeda.

Also the words I most believed in the dialogue were put in the mouth of her asshole boss -- ie, UBL was largely irrelevant by 2008-11.

morbz, i'm saying i find fault with the logic, not espousing it

If we're going to judge movies now based on what stupid people walk away from them believing, ain't nobody's favorites gonna be safe.

last time I checked, stupid people are part of "everyone."

i still don't get the logic where it's not CIA propaganda because everyone just walksaway believing what they already believed, but it's somehow still a worthwhilemovieeven though it doesn't actually inform or shed light on anything

― da croupier, Tuesday, 29 January 2013 15:03 (7 minutes ago) Permalink

OTM

bcz it operates by the rules of a fictional "sophisticated" mersh thriller, which is all many ppl care about.

That woman in the elevator really affected you.

Michael Atkinson:

(Bigelow's) early films represented the sort of stylistic intensity that rises and falls in popularity quickly, and the new century saw her profile in decline – until embedded-journalist Mark Boal’s screenplay for The Hurt Locker and a low budget ($15 million) gave her the chance for a trimmer, steelier, less bullshitty sensibility makeover. Now, just two movies and a stack of awards later, she’s practically institutionalised as the era’s Hemingway or James Jones, the anointed chronicler of postmodern wartime.

But the queen of the Asymmetrical War Film has never been to war – a circumstance that enables her to make a claim that no one of Hemingway’s or Fuller’s experience would ever make: that Zero Dark Thirty is “apolitical”. It’s what a CoD player might say, if pressed to account for the endless replays of gory combat that fill his day. Let’s leave aside the issue of the ginned-up torture-means-finding-bin Laden thread; since when is narrowing down a global manhunt and assassination to its pure procedural facts not political?

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/features/duty-calls-zero-dark-thirty

she’s practically institutionalised as the era’s Hemingway or James Jones, the anointed chronicler of postmodern wartime.

if internet chatter is anything to go by, people in the military think her movies are still pretty bullshitty

Zzzzzzzzz

dude yr keyboard is jammed

Had me until he started comparing it to a videogame. Shit like that is invariably written by people who've never played one.

http://filmmakermagazine.com/64175-zero-dark-thirty-and-the-new-history/

We've been waiting for Mr. Starbursts of Joy to step in..

Too taboo to win the Oscar http://m.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/01/how-zero-dark-thirty-crashed-just-outside-compound/61499/

great headline dipshits

I didn't have that strong a reaction to this: found the first 30-45 minutes a little dreary, thought it got better after that (starting with the suicide bomber who got to Chastain's team). The thing that's driving me up the wall is who one of the actors is. He's one of the CIA guys at the big meeting where Chastain's theory is presented--guy in his 30s, he sort of chairs the meeting. I think I've clicked on every actor on the IMDB page, and I can't find the right guy. Anyone know who I mean?

Mark Strong?

Stephen Dillaine and John Barrowman were also kicking about.

No, I'd checked those guys (just checked again). Wish I could quote a line...Anyway, I'll figure it out eventually--I don't want to sidetrack the thread going through the whole cast.

If you pause this at exactly 1:54, the actor I'm trying to identify is sitting to Chastain's left; he turns his head and looks right at her. I can't put a name to him...he's really well known, I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAtWcvCxPhc

Mark Duplass?

I think it's gotta be Jeff Mash, Mark Duplass, James Gandolfini, John Barrowman, Stephen Dillaine, or Jason Clarke.

Jeff Mash (CIA Deputy Director) is the closest visual match.
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjE5MDM4MDE4M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDA4OTUxMg@@._V1._SY314_CR19,0,214,314_.jpg

Once you mentally tilt his head forward 10 degrees and put less flattering side lighting on his malar bags.

Thanks--so it's Mark Duplass, and I know him from Safety Not Guaranteed.

dude gets a lot of work these days

Opinion piece in a LGBT paper, guns ablazin', by one Susie Day.

See the pale, strawberry-blonde woman help US agents starve Muslims, strip Muslims naked, drag Muslims around on dog leashes, water-board Muslims, kick and punch Muslims, scream in Muslim’s faces, hang Muslims from the ceiling, and cram Muslims into tiny wooden boxes — all without losing an ounce of her femininity.

These interrogations are hard to watch. Why are these interrogations hard to watch? Because they are hard on the Muslims? No, because they are hard on the CIA interrogators. See the cruel Muslims forcing the CIA interrogators to wring accurate information about bin Laden out of them.

Poor CIA interrogators. They must do their job, yet their interrogation work is both banal and evil. The interrogators are sad. Wait, sad interrogators! Here is something you can be cheerful about: Hannah Arendt is no longer alive to write about you!

http://gaycitynews.com/zero-dark-thirty-the-womans-guide-to-success-thru-torture/