Zero Dark Thirty - Anticipation/Discussion Thread

Ha! I don't need to read any more reviews of this movie. And I don't need to see it. VG, have you considered writing reviews?

Oh you.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/07/disturbing-misleading-zero-dark-thirty/

Lunching with a few local film critics today, I was accused of being a "reactionary" for disliking this film. "I don't care for truth," one guy said. "It shook me and disturbed me and made me uncomfortable." I said: Because this boring movie makes you complicit in its endorsement of a fiction? He almost threw his beer in my face.

Another shocked silence followed when I dismissed the inevitable "But what Leni Riefenstahal?" question with "She made a terrible film that everyone who cares about film should nevertheless watch." These guys are professors -- how is this not obvious?

smdh

not shocked to hear about some film profs trying to keep wide-eyed and accepting

Film Prof #2's favorite 2012 film: Argo.

oh ffs

aka Instagram of Iran

Beard of Affleck

You just have to appreciate hollywood not being afraid to tackle the big issues, like how being an american in the middle east must be real scary.

It doesn't make you complicit but other than that

I'm amused by the inevitable Triumph of the Will discussions. You can argue that TotW is great -- "wickedly great," as Louis Farrakhan said of Hitler.

I probably would've thrown that beer into Alfred's face.

teenagers on the internet going "Hitler was evil, yeah, but he was an effective leader"

some nice measured points by Sicinski

4. Maya (no last name given) is the attractive, intuitive female side of a CIA apparatus, and her charisma permits, even demands, an unproblematic identification with both the CIA and the hunt for bin Laden on the part of the viewer. I submit that, were ZDT to ask us to offer ourselves up for similar identification with others in Maya’s orbit – say, Dan (Jason Clarke), her “enhanced interrogation” colleague at the undisclosed Middle Eastern black site, or Joseph Bradley (Kyle Chandler), her Pakistan field office chief / Bush era functionary -- we would not slip nearly so easily into the film’s preferred mode of spectatorship. Rather, we would experience ideological dissonances almost instantly.

5. ZDT has already become a popular talking point for elected officials, smug pundits and other self-appointed guardians of our national innocence. Virtually all of these statements, from outraged leftist weeklies all the way to the floor of the Senate, center on one question. Does ZDT make a clear case that the torture of al Qaeda-affiliated detainees provided specific information leading to the location and killing of Usama bin Laden?

6. There are so many answers to this question floating around the contemporary Van Allen belt of bloviation, that I hesitate to add any further air, hot or cold. However, it seems that the manner in which the question has been continually posed has forced us to overlook some equally important considerations regarding Bigelow’s film. Has the Oscar-winning director made a work of ham-fisted pro-Bushie propaganda, or is ZDT a complex, ambivalent work of art that abjures easy answers? I am very much inclined to say, neither. Just on the narrative level, ZDT could be said to depict the transition from Bush/Cheney to Obama doctrine as a kind of “hinge” moment, when the Company’s usual practices of torture are forced to turn a corner into a more technological (and technocratic) form of intelligence gathering. (The tracking of the courier Abu Ahmed, using mobile phone triangulation, is an example of this.) While ZDT clearly depicts actionable intel resulting from enhanced interrogation, it also depicts a CIA that grasps (not without some carping) that its day is done. Maya exemplifies this transitional phase.

http://academichack.net/reviewsDecember2012.htm

tbh i think 'triumph of the will' is pretty boring. it's more interesting to talk about than it is to watch.

Film Prof #2's favorite 2012 film: Argo.

Everybody has awful taste in everything.

that's not bad from Sicinski, but it's becoming interesting to me how many film critics seem to usher in some notion of an "ideal viewer" who operates as sort of a blank slate that unquestioningly adopts the "film's preferred mode of spectatorship" and then use this phantom to project the movie's own unadulterated intentions of meaning. just a bugaboo of mine.

given some of the points I didn't paste, i'm not sure he's doing that.

fair enough, i should follow links before commenting on them!

also this:

In fact, Maya’s gender factors into ZDT consistently as a sliding signifier of her unique capabilities, the thing which sets her apart and allows her to gain fresh perspective on the bin Laden problem. It’s not just that Maya is permitted to behave in a petulant manner toward her superiors, something that would get her smacked down in a heartbeat if she were a man. (Her ongoing challenge to her boss [Jeremy Strong] to raid the compound, counting the number of days the CIA has sat on the intelligence by scrawling them on his office window in red marker, is particularly preposterous.) And it’s not just that the film shows her winning over members of Seal Team 6 by flirting with them, in her own chilly way. (“Bin Laden is there. And you’re going to kill him for me.”)

Rather, Maya’s single-mindedness is given strange overtones throughout ZDT, as hovering between absolute professional competence and an almost romantic fixation. We see this in the odd way her colleague at the Islamabad office comforts her when her investigation runs aground (“I’m sorry, Maya. I always liked that lead…”), or when CIA Director Leon Panetta (James Gandofini) asks her in the lunchroom what else she’s done, for the CIA and by extension her life. (“Nothing. I’ve done nothing else.”) And so, in the very last shot of ZDT, when the raid is done and UBL has been zipped up in a body bag, we see Maya alone, the sole passenger in a military aircraft leaving Pakistan. “Where do you want to go?” the pilot asks, and, having no answer, Maya begins to silently cry. Again, so very much has been made of this final shot, as a tragic dehiscence within Maya’s life following the end of an obsession, or even as a sudden moment of reflection on everything she’s done over the years, good and bad. But psychoanalytically, Maya has lost her object of desire.

wait til he reads Moby Dick

well, M-D has come up plenty in thinkpieces

really, if anyone has an idea why the most blatant "humanizing" moment in this is reserved for Torturer Dan feeding ice cream to monkeys, I'd like to hear it.

i didn't read that moment as humanizing at all, just made the guy look even weirder

possibly, but what kinda weird are they going for?

Even this movie couldn't resist the urge to make CIA computer interfaces look really theatric and stimulating with bells and whistles. Pulled me out of the illusion briefly...

Just on the narrative level, ZDT could be said to depict the transition from Bush/Cheney to Obama doctrine as a kind of “hinge” moment, when the Company’s usual practices of torture are forced to turn a corner into a more technological (and technocratic) form of intelligence gathering.

Same story as Tom Wolfe's recent piece on Wall Street's change from ballbreakers to nerds.

a certain 'apolitical' cineaste has been mostly discreetly silent on this thread, and that appears to have saved us all a lotta grief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/movies/9-11-victims-family-raises-objection-to-zero-dark-thirty.html?_r=0

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.

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Monday, January 28, 2013 3:21 PM (4 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this. the "endorses torture" thing i'm not buying. embedded screenwriting though... oh je.

last 20 minutes, except the vacuous final shot, were great though, and i agree with ppl saying they wish bigelow would pick different projects to apply these talents to.

the Jarhead guy wrote that no film is antiwar, cuz it will excite young men as long as it shows action.

i've heard this argument from an ex-addict re: anti-drug movies too

― goole, Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:09 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

been talking to a lot of finance guys recently (lol death of academia), and they all love margin call.

even though this film sets a seminally ugly precedent, it would still have got my BP vote this year : (

surpriiiiiiise

http://gawker.com/declassified-memo-shows-how-cia-shaped-zero-dark-thirty-493174407

does it matter?

Watched the HBO Manhunt documentary last night and while purportedly it's "what really happened" it's equally some effective propaganda. Worth watching, but still propaganda.

these are some really shocking revelations. can see why the company would want to keep a tight lid on it.

Stalinist almost rhyming w/ Democrat after all

the most offensive aspect of that movie to me is the restrained, neutral tone of the thing... how adeptly it feigns even-handedness and objectivity. it is a "revenge porn flick" like gawker noted, but it doesn't feel that way, which is why it's so pernicious imo.

evil motives behind evil movie REVEALED

I mean c'mon no one is surprised by this are they

Glen Greenwald is surprised at all the marriage options suddenly knocking on his Brazilian door.

i thought it was already common knowledge that she consulted the CIA? i guess the reveal is that they asked her to take stuff out but... idk i assumed that was the case.

did anyone else see this at nitehawk in brooklyn? they had like this montage of racist depictions of middle easterners that they played before the movie, along with obviously hokey scenes from movies that glorified the US military. it was lol.

it's not so much a reveal as a confirmation that when the cia said "we didn't do that" boal apparently said "um, ok, will fix"

assuming this is an objective description of what happened between boal and the cia is ludicrous imo.

i mean this is is written by people who need to seem competent/influential to their audience, i.e. their bosses.

but in any case, if you assume (1) what the cia told him is true, and (2) their description of their meetings with boal is accurate and complete, this sounds like an account of boal doing fact-checking.

but if you're the kind of person who rejects 1, then you've got to reject 2 as well, in which case i'm not sure what you learn.

Sully destroys Bigelow

crosspost w/ Frontline thread

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/secrets-politics-and-torture/watch-how-the-cia-helped-make-zero-dark-thirty/

Didn't catch that frontline but this was interesting

https://news.vice.com/article/tequila-painted-pearls-and-prada-how-the-cia-helped-produce-zero-dark-thirty