Zero Dark Thirty (Kathryn Bigelow, 2012)

[HistoryProf]

I realize this has gone on long enough but I just saw the film yesterday. For everyone here defending the film I have to say that the critics are right, they do get intelligence from torture in the beginning of the film.

Spoiler

the montage of her watching the torture tapes she hears the name over and over. The first time they get intelligence that helps them do something with that name comes from non-torture methods.

Except they state later in the film that no less than 20 separate interviews or interrogations came up with the same name for the courier. It wasn't just that single person shown in the film. It happened all over. THAT was what made Maya key in on it. So perhaps SOME mentions came as the result of torture, but I don't see how anyone could deduce from the film that it was the ONLY source. It just isn't portrayed that way. The one detainee we see at length was part of the mosaic that produced the impression for Maya that the courier was important. I'm certainly no advocate for the methods, but I just could not see where this vitriol is coming from.

And whoever noted the lack of heroics in the final act is spot on. I was especially struck by the guy who ends up firing the fatal shots - and how overwhelmed he was by the act...so much so that he was paralyzed by the hugeness of it all. "I was the shooter on the third floor" - "I know man...good work". Now grab a bag and help us carry this shit. It was work for them, and I had the sense that they wouldn't actually sit down and think about it until long after the event. I'm not sure what exactly it is about that entire sequence, but I felt like it got into the mind of a modern soldier more than anything i've seen.

[TheDudeAbides]

I watched this film last night and while I found it to be a very good film, I was disappointed a little bit. I guess it was because of my ridiculously high expectations based upon how much I loved The Hurt Locker but I found it to be a less substantial film then The Hurt Locker was. It also may partially be because I enjoyed the fact that The Hurt Locker was essentially a character piece and did not focus on establishing a traditionally structured narrative story. I was also a little bit underwhelmed by the cinematography, it was rather plainly shot and although it was well shot, it didn’t encapsulate me and wow me like the beautiful, gritty, guerilla/documentary style 16mm cinematography in The Hurt Locker; that is until

Spoiler

the takedown at the end. The takedown sequence was just incredible; beautifully paced, claustrophobic, with this beautifully shot gray colouring offset by the hyper green night vision shots. The takedown was impeccably shot, edited and well conceived with a deep seated meaning and thought behind it; one of the greatest sequences of war/action I’ve ever seen in a film. I loved when the middle eastern CIA agent was going through the house to deliver the SEALS the body bag for Osama, the look on his face when he saw the children crying in the house was phenomenal,

it perfectly summed up Bigelow’s message (or at least my interpretation of her message) which was essentially “We got Osama, but at what cost? What have we done”. I thought the ending line to the film was absolutely incredible too, a perfect allegory to the Iraq war, I wish I could remember it exactly but something to the effect of what's next, or where to next, but either way it was a phenomenal stamp to the end of the film, the end of the Iraq war, and the end of chasing Bin Laden for Maya. Additionally, I loved Chastain's acting at the end, for me it felt like it carried on Bigelow's message of War is a Drug from The Hurt Locker, where Maya realized that she had become so preoccupied with catching Bin Laden that she had nothing else, this was the only thing she had in her life and now it was over and she is terrified. I may not have enjoyed this as much as The Hurt Locker but I still think it is one of the greatest films of 2012 (although I’ve yet to see Argo which some here have said was a better film).

Gregory wrote:
Yet the film is more preoccupied with repeatedly depicting the torture in detail than including anything of a higher level of complexity and interest that would raise questions about the implications of these policies of detention and torture and the way legality has been thrown out the window.

I didn’t find that Bigelow was preoccupied with torture or even showed it repeatedly, my interpretation of why she chose to depict the torture scenes was to show the dehumanizing practices that happen during war, I found that she was being critical of the American response to the 9/11 attacks and wanted to illustrate how far we can stray from civilization and civilized practices when we feel threatened. I also felt that the torture was shown because fit her narrative vision of establishing the path to finding Bin Laden. Jason Clarke was phenomenal in the torture/capture scenes, he was completely believable as an Iraq war interrogator, he genuinely terrified me in some of the scenes; well, I mean if I were the captured one I would be terrified by him; he’s a scary dude.

[Brian C]

Tough to take anything the CIA has to say seriously when Bigelow/Boal were all but, embedded within the agency and especially since the film very much plays as pro CIA. I'd go as far as to say that a strong case can be made that the film is an outright defense/promotion of the CIA far more than anything else and furthermore find it hard to believe that Boal's screenplay in return for access didn't go through the CIA, receiving its proverbial stamp of approval. Morell's statement reads to me as very much damage control in the face of some angry senators.

I finally got around to seeing the movie last night, and I think this reaction is the most puzzling to me, because I kind of agree that there's a "Hurrah for the CIA!!" tone to the film. At the same time, though, I think that the movie objectively shows the CIA as massively incompetent - except, of course, for "the girl".

I mean, for all the agency focus on the detainee program, the amount of usable information they got was pretty limited. Finally they get a break of sorts when Maya's ears perk up at one guy's name, but still I think it has to be said that the torture regime as presented in the movie got very paltry results for all the resources thrown at it. And hell, even though Maya's ears perk up, only Maya's ears perk up, and indeed she has to fight her bosses all the way to the end because they don't believe her. She has to single-handedly track UBL down because everyone else in the organization has what she herself calls a "pre-9/11 understanding" of what they're even looking for - it seems not to have occurred to anyone that UBL might have changed his methods as a response to US actions.

And even on top of that, the rest of her agency colleagues profess to be obsessed with stopping the next attacks, but there's no evidence in the movie that they're all that successful at that, either. The film is punctuated throughout with various terrorist attacks, after all, with the episode involving Jennifer Ehle's character especially being a truly pathetic bucket of fail. The only unsuccessful attack that I recall being referenced was the Richard Reid shoebomber episode, and of course the CIA had nothing to do with stopping that one, as it was thwarted by an alert passenger and Reid's own incompetence in detonating the device. Hell, it doesn't even occur to anyone that Maya, the most conspicuous white person ever, might be a target while driving herself around Peshawar - these assholes can't even anticipate attacks on themselves, much less the American homeland.

So, I thought that whole vibe was weird, but it underlines the film's general lack of thoughtfulness. The political controversy around the film is semi-amusing to me, because I don't think Bigelow gives a tinker's damn about any of the actual issues the movie raises. It's basically a female empowerment story crossed with an unusually skillful Hollywood action movie product, and that's about it. Essentially the movie plays as a justification for putting the raid of UBL's compund on film. Which is perhaps not all bad, because Bigelow is really, really good at staging onscreen action. But people looking for deeper messages either pro- or anti-torture are wasting their time; any resemblance to the real political issues is strictly coincidental.

[warren oates]

Hell, it doesn't even occur to anyone that Maya, the most conspicuous white person ever, might be a target while driving herself around Peshawar - these assholes can't even anticipate attacks on themselves, much less the American homeland.

Exactly. But is this detail more about the questionable judgment of the real-life CIA officers or the screenwriter? This is really just the tip of the probably wildly procedurally inaccurate iceberg in ZDT, as far as I'm concerned. If I ever get around to finishing some form of the post I've been "working on" for weeks, I will address this point and related questions in more depth.

[Brian C]

Exactly. But is this detail more about the questionable judgment of the real-life CIA officers or the screenwriter?

Well, I don't really know, and to be honest, I think this question is mostly irrelevant. It's a Hollywood action movie, and thus a certain liberty with the facts is to be assumed. I'm just trying to make a point about the movie's treatment of the CIA - I'm not attempting to use the movie as a basis for a take-down of the real-life CIA (though god knows they probably need one).

[hearthesilence]

I agree. Even documentaries are rarely 100% accurate - regardless of what a filmmaker may say about the research behind their narrative film, the final result of any dramatization shouldn't be equated with a piece of journalism.

[warren oates]

Since I'm equally obsessed with the nature of procedural docudrama (especially the best ones like All The President's Men and The Battle of Algiers) and with the specific historical reality dramatized in this film, what interests me are the ways the specific choices of the filmmakers did or didn't serve both what's known about the real events and the ultimate shape they took in the finished film as drama. Some of the the choices struck me as better trade-offs than others. Some as quite arbitrary misrepresentations that don't even seem to do much for the film. All in all I think their access to unique secret sources -- or at least the information those sources offered up and its ultimate impact on the film -- along with the verisimilitude of what we see in almost every section but the raid and the

Spoiler

double agent meeting/bombing

has been exaggerated. In many ways I feel like the project might have been better served by being much longer, a miniseries for HBO or something. That would have freed up the writing from having to compress and consolidate so many actions/characters in ways that locked in some awkward decisions that were both less true and less dramatically interesting than they might have been. Anyway, I had better stop now and/or just finish up that longer post.

[Brian C]

All in all I think their access to unique secret sources ... has been exaggerated.

No doubt ... all along this seemed more like a cynical (or perhaps naive, if the filmmakers really thought they were getting "secret" information) marketing angle than a genuine point in the movie's favor.

[inneyp]

I disagree with almost everything that's been said. Here's why: I feel the movie deserves consideration independent of its context, and of the fact that it was portraying true events. Things can get really esoteric on this board and I feel now is a good time to remember that films are traditionally held to the standard of their storytelling. This was an intriguing story, well told. It was engaging from start to finish, and even avoided the usual pitfalls of most movies about recent history. The focus here was on Jessica Chastain's character and the other people involved with this operation on the most direct level. Larger political figures were mostly left out and alluded to only when necessary. Even Leon Panetta was involved only insofar as he had immediate business with Maya. The most irritating thing to me has been all the ideological analyses of the movie. I haven't spoken with her, but I don't think Kathryn Bigelow was trying to communicate her views on water boarding or the legitimacy of American exploits abroad. I think she was trying to tell one woman's story, and insofar as that goes she and Boal did a fantastic job.

[warren oates]

This was an intriguing story, well told. It was engaging from start to finish, and even avoided the usual pitfalls of most movies about recent history.

Which are what pitfalls exactly? And how would you even know what they are in the case of this particular film unless you actually looked into the history you claim you don't care about?

[inneyp]

This was an intriguing story, well told. It was engaging from start to finish, and even avoided the usual pitfalls of most movies about recent history.

Which are what pitfalls exactly? And how would you even know what they are in the case of this particular film unless you actually looked into the history you claim you don't care about?

One strength as I mentioned was the resistance to including figures still active in the public imagination. If Obama had made an appearance at any point, for example, it would have almost inevitably come off as caricature. A small thing but one that has large effects on the way a film is perceived. There's also the fact that it didn't try to predict the eventual legacy of these events. Again like I said, it's concerned primarily with one woman's experience (attempting to tell the entire story from all points of view is almost a setup for failure), not with ideologies or political statements. Both of which things can work against a film's basic storytelling function- and in this case have interfered with it on the receiving end.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

I disagree with almost everything that's been said. Here's why: I feel the movie deserves consideration independent of its context, and of the fact that it was portraying true events. Things can get really esoteric on this board and I feel now is a good time to remember that films are traditionally held to the standard of their storytelling. This was an intriguing story, well told. It was engaging from start to finish, and even avoided the usual pitfalls of most movies about recent history. The focus here was on Jessica Chastain's character and the other people involved with this operation on the most direct level. Larger political figures were mostly left out and alluded to only when necessary. Even Leon Panetta was involved only insofar as he had immediate business with Maya. The most irritating thing to me has been all the ideological analyses of the movie. I haven't spoken with her, but I don't think Kathryn Bigelow was trying to communicate her views on water boarding or the legitimacy of American exploits abroad. I think she was trying to tell one woman's story, and insofar as that goes she and Boal did a fantastic job.

Not to rehash what has already been admirably represented throughout this thread, but you can't just look at a story about the hunt for bin Laden and treat it as some crackerjack spy story without political valence. That's impossible, and it would be naive to assume that Bigelow did not choose her story for its ripe topicality; perhaps she had other reasons in addition, but no one is going to make a film on this subject right now without considering how charged it is for worldwide audiences. I don't think a viewer or filmmaker can ever escape ideologies or politics and the biases those inevitably provoke (I'm a bit of a Godardian that way), but certainly in this case, one must admit that it will take more than a few years before we can regard the bin Laden story as just the basis for a rip-snorting adventure and toss aside our feelings one way or the other about the War on Terror of which this manhunt is the apotheosis. Context is nearly everything in this case.

But, like I said, all of this has been explained and argued clearly prior to this. Not sure why it seems "esoteric" to you. What was unnecessarily confusing?

[warren oates]

This was an intriguing story, well told. It was engaging from start to finish, and even avoided the usual pitfalls of most movies about recent history.

Which are what pitfalls exactly? And how would you even know what they are in the case of this particular film unless you actually looked into the history you claim you don't care about?

One thing was as I mentioned the resistance to including active figures in the general public's consciousness. If Obama had made an appearance at any point, for example, it would have almost inevitably come off as caricature. A small thing but one that has large effects on the way a film is perceived. There's also the fact that it didn't try to predict the eventual legacy of these events. Like I also said, it's concerned primarily with one woman's experience, not with ideologies or political statements. Both of which things work against a film's basic storytelling function.

Right, but that one woman's story is only of interest -- to the filmmakers or the audience -- for the way it shapes and interacts with major historical events, events which are undeniably political regardless of where any viewer's personal politics lie. Anyway, I think I've misunderstood your post. I mistook your critique of an over-emphasis on viewer responses focused on the history and politics to a blanket dismissal of those considerations, which would just be goofy.

[inneyp]

I was absolutely NOT dismissing those considerations. I would disagree with the fact that this woman's story is only of interest insofar as you mentioned, and I'd be willing to bet a fair few moviegoers and the filmmakers (especially) would as well. It's ability to function independent of detailed context is what ensures the quality of timelessness. I think a hypothetically precocious but shielded child with no knowledge of our political affairs would still get something out of this film.

gcgiles1dollarbin - Esoteric doesn't mean confusing. And quite apart from a "crackerjack spy story" or a "rip-snorting" adventure I'm treating it as a narratively charged character piece. I'm not calling alternative analyses invalid, I just think it deserves to be approached from another angle. Funnily enough, I do think this is a classic Godard vs Truffaut kind of interpretational rift.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

Being "esoteric" suggests that this discussion is designed for folks with specialized knowledge beyond the ken of a common reader (thus "confusing" to someone who objects to that content), and I don't think that is what has transpired here. I'm still curious where you think people got carried away.

[inneyp]

Being "esoteric" suggests that this discussion is designed for folks with specialized knowledge beyond the ken of a common reader (thus "confusing" to someone who objects to that content), and I don't think that is what has transpired here. I'm still curious where you think people got carried away.

I've already said several times. I don't think anyone got carried away, I think a lot of people just neglected to acknowledge the movie's standalone merits.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

That's fine. I'm not trying to hound you; just thought there were moments along the way that specifically irked you, aside from the fact that posters have used (quite inevitably) context and ideology to support their arguments.

[warren oates]

I would disagree with the fact that this woman's story is only of interest insofar as you mentioned, and I'd be willing to bet a fair few moviegoers and the filmmakers (especially) would as well. It's ability to function independent of detailed context is what ensures the quality of timelessness.

This just doesn't seem supported by the facts of the film itself or its production history. Boal and Bigelow started out not making a film about the empowerment of an anonymous female technocrat but about a group of male soliders, the Delta Force and a few CIA paramilitary officers, who almost killed Bin Laden at Tora Bora. When history eclipsed their developing story the filmmakers shifted into portraying the raid and the manhunt that did kill him. The woman at the center of their tale pretty much is her job. That's all we ever know about her. That's all she's shown to care about. That's the only reason we're looking over her shoulder. Generic strong woman solving generic bureaucratic/detective/spy problem it is not. Though I wouldn't mind seeing Boal/Bigelow work in a more abstract Jean Pierre Melville-esque mode of narrative someday, it's the farthest thing from what they made in ZDT.

[inneyp]

Generic strong woman solving generic bureaucratic/detective/spy problem it is not. Though I wouldn't mind seeing Boal/Bigelow work in a more abstract Jean Pierre Melville-esque mode of narrative someday, it's the farthest thing from what they made in ZDT.

I'm not saying either of these things. In fact I suggested it receive praise for being a particularly strong, straightforward narrative. It's far from generic, I never claimed it was. The characters and situations are fully fleshed out, and that's why it works as a movie regardless of its context. I'm not saying that context be dismissed- again, let me emphasize- I'm saying it not be the only consideration when determining the movie's quality.

[boywonder]

[no spoiler alerts ... we all know how this ends, right?]

After reading a few reviews for "Zero Dark Thirty" and the lengthy discussion here on the accuracy of the film versus the current perceived version of the killing of Bin Laden or "UBL" as the end credits baffling call him, my only hope was for a film that managed to make sense as a fictionalized Hollywood war flick with some style, good writing, and an adherence to an internal reality of some logic.

Jeez, was I disappointed. Poor Jessica Chastain ... an actress of some note, reduced to a two toned conglomerate figure representing God knows how many people working for the CIA for a decade. She had her "tough side", when she torturously forced herself, in her half turned, almost fatal position, to view and minimally take part in the interrogation sessions ... and her "super tough side" when she forced her trembling lips to yell "I was the muthafucka who found ..." I do believe the actress is capable of much more, but perhaps in need better direction and dialogue. Director Bigelow seems to be on a downhill slide ever since film school. Bigelow's only audacious bit of film making was, for me, her first feature length Paul Morrissey-like "The Loveless" with bad-assed Willem Defoe in his first feature roll. From there she has seemed determined to play like the big boys in the genre of blowing up bigger things with each movie she makes. Whatever ...

As far as plot, the movie, although shot in an overly pedestrian style, was convoluted enough through its first half to fool me into believing it was conveying the ambiguities of a complex situation. The second half obliterated any hope that even a decent fictionalized movie could come out this mixed bag of CIA-speak. What I had assumed was convoluted, was in fact just messy story telling. Chastain's character, if one could call it that, was so flat, and without any backstory except that she was recruited out of high school by the CIA (ya, right?!), didn't have a single friend (ya, right?!), and felt God, a "G" with a 25 point font, had kept her alive so she could save America, mom, and apple pie. Now how, exactly, is that gonna help finding her intriguing enough to care about?

To wind this little diatribe down, let's just move to the last half hour that I swear seemed to take longer than the killing of "UBL" took in real time, with very little of the utter tenseness of the the assassination (without bringing "UBL" to world court as Prez Obama presumably instructed). The CGI night flight to Pakistan looked worse than most video games. The ensuing takeover of the compound consisted of the multiple blowing up of doors (always a guaranteed bore, in my book), and then a rather hasty retreat back to home base where in a most unbieveable scene Chastain gives the final ID check of "UBL" by half unzipping the body bag and giving a positive ID by glancing quickly at a bloody, but white beard (I want that job!)

The end's coda with Chastain alone in a huge military jet left me wondering if it was the only bit of irony in the film. If her character did represent every person who worked on CIA project, then it did seem to work as a metaphor ... the Navy seals get the credit ... the people who found "UBL", as embodied in Chastain, get an empty plane with a free ride to anywhere and no place. However, in making Chastain a real, albeit mix of people, her lack of character gave me no reason to care about her pathetic lot.

Also, didn't it seem as if she had the same iPhone from start to finish?

[Jeff]

"UBL" as the end credits baffling call him

That is how the CIA actually refers to him. Seems appropriate.

Poor Jessica Chastain ... an actress of some note, reduced to a two toned conglomerate figure representing God knows how many people working for the CIA for a decade.

While there is undoubtedly lots of fictionalization for dramatic purposes, and likely some compositing too, Chastain's character is based on a single actual CIA investigator.

Director Bigelow seems to be on a downhill slide ever since film school...she has seemed determined to play like the big boys in the genre of blowing up bigger things with each movie she makes. Whatever ...

That's certainly a minority opinion on Bigelow's career trajectory. What does "playing like the big boys" mean? What blows up in this film other than the helicopter that the SEALs actually blew up and the Marriott that terrorists actually blew up? Neither one of those incidents seemed gratuitous.

shot in an overly pedestrian style

How so? What is "pedestrian style" cinematography? I would think of something staged and lit like a three-camera sitcom. That certainly wasn't the case here.

she was recruited out of high school by the CIA (ya, right?!)

The agent that Chastain's character was based on was recruited in college, but the agency has been known to recruit kids as young as 17.

[boywonder]

Regarding "Zero Dark Thirty" as a film ...

... If you are creating a quasi-real person to be the lead in this film it makes sense to base the Jessica Chastain character on more than a three sentence personality study, especially when those traits seem incongruous to the actor playing the part. Ms. Chastain seems as if she may be capable of having friends ... she seems driven enough to have had a more rigorous life prior to joining the CIA than a high school education. However, her continued fetal body language left the possibility open that she was severely undertrained for that line of work ... Her movie persona backstory did not match her on screen character. This has nothing to do with the quasi-real person she is based upon. The two (or however many people), Chastain and her possibly real conglomerate, are two quite different things.

Most of Bigelow's films lack style. She seems to be a competent craft person well fit for the current crop of films made by Americans today. But, If this film had been put in the hands of a director such as Claire Denis, one might find a gripping, tantalizing film. I was sweating bullets during "White Material" ... the entire look, the wandering camera, the possible danger around any corner had me on edge. Bigelow's world had no hallucinatory edge to it. Chastain's performance gave the film a lethargic, downer druggy, running on empty feel. She needed to be filled up with premium unleaded and put into forth gear!

"ZDT: a filmed novelization of an historic event" should have created an internal, plausible world.

[Brian C]

No doubt Claire Denis was the studio's second choice had Bigelow not worked out...

[Clodius]

Regarding "Zero Dark Thirty" as a film ...

... If you are creating a quasi-real person to be the lead in this film it makes sense to base the Jessica Chastain character on more than a three sentence personality study, especially when those traits seem incongruous to the actor playing the part. Ms. Chastain seems as if she may be capable of having friends ... she seems driven enough to have had a more rigorous life prior to joining the CIA than a high school education. However, her continued fetal body language left the possibility open that she was severely undertrained for that line of work ... Her movie persona backstory did not match her on screen character. This has nothing to do with the quasi-real person she is based upon. The two (or however many people), Chastain and her possibly real conglomerate, are two quite different things.

Most of Bigelow's films lack style. She seems to be a competent craft person well fit for the current crop of films made by Americans today. But, If this film had been put in the hands of a director such as Claire Denis, one might find a gripping, tantalizing film. I was sweating bullets during "White Material" ... the entire look, the wandering camera, the possible danger around any corner had me on edge. Bigelow's world had no hallucinatory edge to it. Chastain's performance gave the film a lethargic, downer druggy, running on empty feel. She needed to be filled up with premium unleaded and put into forth gear!

"ZDT: a filmed novelization of an historic event" should have created an internal, plausible world.

Couple things.

1. She was capable of having, and did have friends. They died in the Camp Chapman bombing, giving her ever more reason to pursue UBL.
2. Um, I would imagine that the CIA recruited her out of high school, gave her a college scholarship, then extensively trained her, and THEN sent her to Pakistan. Remember that the male CIA agent casually mentions his doctorate early in the film.
3. Her "fetal body language"? In e very first scene she is repulsed by the torture acts (as many would/should be) but over the first 30 minutes of the film we see her embrace those tactics and from there on she is a very determined, driven, capable, and effective agent. The only other real moment of weakness is when her friends die, but she pulls it together to continue her work.
4. Bigelow's style for this film was perfect. It was not meant to be AMERICA F*** YEAH. It was an examination of the national obsession for vengeance after 911. Even so, the final raid sequence was tense while still remaining accurate to military tactics. It was a beautifully shot sequence.

Sounds like you went in wanting Sly Stallone and Arnold to burst through the Abbottobad complex, delivering a perfect headshot to Osama, and then uttering a pithy remark. This was much better.

[Grand Illusion]

She seems to be a competent craft person well fit for the current crop of films made by Americans today.

Which of the other highly-regarded American films do you think Bigelow could've directed? Moonrise Kingdom? The Master? Beasts of the Southern Wild? Identity Thief?

But, If this film had been put in the hands of a director such as Claire Denis, one might find a gripping, tantalizing film. I was sweating bullets during "White Material" ... the entire look, the wandering camera, the possible danger around any corner had me on edge. Bigelow's world had no hallucinatory edge to it.

I guess if you're philosophically opposed to procedurals, then you probably bought a ticket to the wrong film.