Zero Dark Thirty (Kathryn Bigelow, 2012)

[HistoryProf]

Is there an awards category for worst thread?

No kidding. I was surprised to see that with 28 reviews and counting, ZDT is sitting pretty at 100% fresh on RT, so I come to my favorite film forum to see what the scoop is since people here tend to see things early and get 3+ pages of partisan blathering about who said what about a movie no one discussing it has seen. I wasn't a huge fan of the Hurt Locker at all, but i'm intrigued about this film and the wide ranging glowing reviews so far. Yet all anyone wants to talk about here is whether or not it "glorifies torture" when no one has actually seen it?

And since when does a film have to be anti-war to be good? I'm as opposed to the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as anyone that doesn't mean there aren't compelling stories to be told about events that have occurred, or even fictional ones that haven't. If politics are dictating what a good movie is or isn't then the terrorists have clearly won.

[Cold Bishop]

The problem isn't that it's pro-war, but that some contend that the film is out-and-out lying about the use and efficacy of torture in the depiction of the investigation, which is a worthy criticism regardless of its outlook or politics.

But not having seen the film...

[fernmayo]

... waterboading did not lead to Bin Laden's capture.

Leon Panetta disagrees with you.

[zedz]

... waterboading did not lead to Bin Laden's capture.

Leon Panetta disagrees with you.

The Criterion Forum, where the Misinformed meet the Disgruntled! Axes will be ground! Sabres will be rattled! But Nobody - and I mean Nobody! - will come out of this any the wiser.

[warren oates]

... waterboading did not lead to Bin Laden's capture.

Leon Panetta disagrees with you.

Counting the seconds until somebody clamors on to discredit Panetta because he's obviously just a stooge of the system. Why would he tell the truth, that imperialist, just because he's in a position to know what happened? All spy chiefs lie by nature about everything always! Fernmayo, you might also want to read a few more of the previous posts in the thread, like this one where I link to a bit more of a nuanced view Panetta expressed in a private letter to John McCain a few days after the testimony you reference. It seems Panetta would probably disagree with your characterization of his position while still ultimately saying things Black Hat doesn't want to hear.

[matrixschmatrix]

Counting the seconds until somebody clamors on to discredit Panetta because he's obviously just a stooge of the system. Why would he tell the truth, that imperialist, just because he's in a position to know what happened? All spy chiefs lie by nature about everything always! Fernmayo, you might also want to read a few more of the previous posts in the thread, like this one where I link to a bit more of a nuanced view Panetta expressed in a private letter to John McCain a few days after the testimony you reference. It seems Panetta would probably disagree with your characterization of his position while still ultimately saying things Black Hat doesn't want to hear.

All sarcasm aside, I honestly do not feel that a former head of the CIA is a compelling source of information on the subject one way or the other. I firmly believe that someone who was in that position is more likely to say whatever he or she feels is most likely to achieve policy ends than to feel any particular fealty to the truth, because that is what a CIA operative's job entails, and this is in no way someone who has turned his back on that system.

[Black Hat]

Given the information already out there about the film I don't believe it was at all necessary for Greenwald to see it before writing about one aspect of it.

And if he'd come to a conclusion that you oppose through the same method? How quickly would you be ready to defend his critical take on some hearsay? In how many other situations would you accept pointed criticisms of a movie by a critic who hadn't seen it?

You ought to seriously ask yourself: are you cutting this guy so much slack because he says things that you want to hear said? It certainly seems that way when you end with:

Greenwald's point was necessary to be made.

Personally, I value intellectual honesty and informed criticism more than having my own views confirmed for me. So I think Greenwald's points are irrelevant. He did not come by them honestly or rigorously, and therefore I have no time for them, even if they are things I'd like to believe (or not). I'm with George Orwell: you have to be able to criticise your own side if you ever want to approach being an independent thinker.

Well Mr. Sausage you cherry picked what I wrote to fit a preconceived narrative you have that I'm some sort of blind partisan incapable of forming my own opinion. Leaving out the obvious condescension that I wish your reply had spared me of, it seems to me that's not only presumptuous and intellectually lazy on your part but, also obfuscating of what the real issue is here.

As I wrote earlier, common sense says it would have behooved Greenwald to have seen the film before commenting but, it's also clear that his piece was not film criticism, nor a review of the film but, rather his opinion of the commentary, or as you put it, the hearsay coming from those who have already seen the film. Understanding that context I don't see how he was intellectually dishonest or misinformed. That said, Greenwald should have anticipated that people will have difficulty grasping what his point and its context was in favor of dismissing it out of hand because 'he hasn't seen the movie!' and seen the film first.

[Black Hat]

Not about what I want to hear. Lets be honest, most of us, or at least I hope most of us, are far, far away from these unfortunate realities of the world we live in. What I do care about when discussion of this sort comes up is trying to get at the truth. You and fernmayo both disputed what I said earlier based upon links you provided, lets take a look at them and another one of mine, I'll add the dates as I think they're important


May 3, 2011 Panetta's quote from fernmayo's link

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" were used to extract information that led to the mission's success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

Panetta, who in a 2009 CIA confirmation hearing declared "waterboarding is torture and it's wrong," said Tuesday that debate about its use will continue.

"Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question," Panetta said.

May 16, 2011 Panetta's quote from Warren's link

"we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.

In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means."

April 30, 2012 Dianne Feinstein & Carl Levin

The statement from Senators Dianne Feinstein of California, chairwoman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, called the notion that the so-called enhanced interrogation methods helped the C.I.A. find Bin Laden by identifying his courier “misguided and misinformed.”

“Instead, the C.I.A. learned of the existence of the courier, his true name and location through means unrelated to the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program,” the statement said, without elaborating. The senators said their conclusions were based on a three-year study of the agency’s interrogation program by the intelligence committee staff that is nearing completion but remains secret.

I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions or as some would say, hear what they want to hear.

[warren oates]

Not about what I want to hear. Lets be honest, most of us, or at least I hope most of us, are far, far away from these unfortunate realities of the world we live in. What I do care about when discussion of this sort comes up is trying to get at the truth. You and fernmayo both disputed what I said earlier based upon links you provided, lets take a look at them and another one of mine, I'll add the dates as I think they're important

Going all the way back to the Bowden quotation I posted, I've never argued that torture produced a key break in the Bin Laden manhunt, nor have any of the sources I've linked to. That's a question beyond dispute for anyone who's done their research. What I take issue with is the cherry picking of quotations from officials/sources that are spun in ways that tend to exaggerate the case one way or the other. Either to make the claim that -- in spite of the fact that it wasn't moral, necessary or effective -- no detainee who was tortured ever told the CIA anything that in any way established or corroborated the importance of Bin Laden's courier, either during or after their torture, or any information that was in any way part of the intelligence picture that lead up to the final renewed focus on the courier. Or, coming from the Fox News crowd, that torture simply worked and was a clearly necessary part of the process.

Hopefully the Senate Intelligence Commitee will declassify their report soon. The senators you quote aren't quoted very extensively in that NYT piece and they are specifically refuting discredited claims by Jose Rodriguez that torture clearly produced unequivocally important information that would not have been established otherwise. When they say “Instead, the C.I.A. learned of the existence of the courier, his true name and location through means unrelated to the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program," they are likely referring to the very first mention of the courier, in the FBI interrogation of Abu Zubaydah by Ali Soufan. But that doesn't mean that other mentions of the courier that came later, sometimes in the process of torture, weren't also considered important by the team chasing Bin Laden. And this includes KSM's lies about the courier -- that he had "retired" -- which he apparently told his interrogators after (but not during) the many times he was water-boarded. In the context of everything else they knew at the time, the lies told the team something important too.

Peter Bergen, one of the few Western journalists* ever to interview Bin Laden in person, and a man who's been on the story since before almost anyone else cared, appears to draw similar conclusions. Once again, that torture produced no crucial leads but that some detainees who were tortured offered up some information that was seen to contribute to the manhunt. You can read more about it on pages 99-100 of his excellent book Manhunt.

*(edited from "only Westerner" thanks to a notes from "who is bobby dylan" and hearthesilence later in this thread)

[Black Hat]

That's more than fair Warren and believe it or not I agree with that sentiment. I'm reminded of a great scene from Mad Men where if I recall correctly everyone's huddled over the tv watching what's going on with the Cuban missile crisis in which Don shows no interest. When somebody asks him why he's not paying attention he responds by saying he has "...better things to do. It's not like they're going to tell us what's really going on anyway."

[flyonthewall2983]

Why the CIA isn't so proud of 'Jen', the operative who tracked down Osama.

[Jack Phillips]

This is probably the wrong thread to post this in because I've actually seen the film. However, I did want to share a couple points that impressed me. First, I saw a 35mm print of this: it had reel-change marks and everything. Once I noticed the first mark I had to keep watching for all the others. It's been years since I've been able to play that game. Second, the style of the picture put me in mind of Assayas's Carlos. I was sitting there thinking, Man, this is kinda like Carlos. And then, forty minutes into the picture, enter Edgar Ramirez! I wanted to laugh my ass off, but felt intimidated by the biddies surrounding me. But if I'd been at home, I would have really let go.

[flyonthewall2983]

I thought I saw him in a TV spot a few days ago.

[zedz]

This is probably the wrong thread to post this in because I've actually seen the film.

You're leaving it very late for your 'Post of the Year' run!

[Alan Smithee]

... waterboading did not lead to Bin Laden's capture.

Leon Panetta disagrees with you.

The Criterion Forum, where the Misinformed meet the Disgruntled! Axes will be ground! Sabres will be rattled! But Nobody - and I mean Nobody! - will come out of this any the wiser.

Oh man imagine if Nobody were still on this forum? This would be an even bigger shitshow than it already is. He's probably having an aneurysm over this movie.

[HistoryProf]

An outstanding piece by Andrew O'Hehir at Salon. In particular, he perfectly gave voice to the sense I had from the "controversy" building around the torture scene, but could not adequately explain without having seen it:

At most, Boal’s screenplay suggests that one detail emerged from this interrogation that would become important a long way down the line – but that it was actually information the CIA already possessed from other sources. Even that vague connection is contentious, since virtually everything about this story is. I suspect Boal’s intention is more like this: Torture was absolutely employed by CIA interrogators on presumed al-Qaida detainees, and the people who practiced it apparently believed it was working. Therefore it’s an important part of the story whether or not it really produced “actionable intel.” “Zero Dark Thirty” absolutely does not imply that torture interrogations led directly to the shadowy bin Laden contact who in turn led the CIA to “the Sheik’s” Pakistani hiding place. It’s just as plausible to say that “Zero Dark Thirty” suggests that torture became a grotesque and unproductive sideshow that gummed up the works and slowed down the more normal forms of surveillance, coercion and subterfuge that constitute intelligence-gathering.

I want to see this even more now. I really think personal partisan baggage is irredeemably coloring a lot of people's perceptions of events portrayed in the film. O'Hehir identifies what are apparently purposeful ambiguities that should force viewers to ask difficult questions, and declares the film a masterpiece.

[jbeall]

As someone who probably agrees with Glenn Greenwald on most political issues, I've always found him far too strident to take very seriously. Also, given that Greenwald wrote for salon.com until fairly recently (or does he still write for them?), it's interesting that O'Hehir doesn't reference this, instead referring to him as "Guardian columnist." Or maybe I'm just reading too much into that.

David Ehrenstein's take.

[HistoryProf]

As someone who probably agrees with Glenn Greenwald on most political issues, I've always found him far too strident to take very seriously. Also, given that Greenwald wrote for salon.com until fairly recently (or does he still write for them?), it's interesting that O'Hehir doesn't reference this, instead referring to him as "Guardian columnist." Or maybe I'm just reading too much into that.

David Ehrenstein's take.

The link Ehrenstein provides to Greenwald's "article" is hilarious...what kind of title is this?

Zero Dark Thirty: new torture-glorifying film wins raves
Can a movie that relies on fabrications to generate support for war crimes still be considered great?

I will profess to knowing nothing about Glenn, but based on this crap i'd assume he cut his teeth interning for Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.

[jbeall]

I will profess to knowing nothing about Glenn, but based on this crap i'd assume he cut his teeth interning for Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.

He wrote for salon.com for many years, and occasionally makes appearances on the MSNBC talk shows. but he's one of those incredibly shrill liberals who constantly feels the need to show that he's more left than you. Although I'm pretty liberal myself and can barely stand MSNBC, I recall watching him get into it with Lawrence O'Donnell once over who had the better lefty credentials. He'd probably be more convincing if he'd just tone it down several degrees.

Back to the film: O'Hehir's got me wanting to see it, so while I don't usually watch a film on opening weekend, I probably will in this case.

[triodelover]

He wrote for salon.com for many years, and occasionally makes appearances on the MSNBC talk shows. but he's one of those incredibly shrill liberals who constantly feels the need to show that he's more left than you. Although I'm pretty liberal myself and can barely stand MSNBC, I recall watching him get into it with Lawrence O'Donnell once over who had the better lefty credentials. He'd probably be more convincing if he'd just tone it down several degrees.

Agreed. Like you, I agree with him on most issues, but he's made a profession of being aggrieved and it's really getting in the way of his credibility.

[Jack Phillips]

From the Ehrenstein piece:
Further, the film does not explicitly show torture as successful. The al Qaeda courier eventually does surrender information, but it comes while he is being treated to food during a more serene interrogation. Whether that’s enough to discredit torture — or whether Bigelow and Boal intended it to be — is up for debate.
This is a bit disingenuous. Being nice to the detainee is only effective because the interograters have first been not-so-nice. It's simple good-cop/bad-cop technique, and the film shows that that approach yields results.

Those results may be open to debate. I thought the film made it clear that although the identity of UBL's courier wasn't established this way, the fact of his existence was. As a plot point this was extremely important: this certainty is what motivates the Jen/Maya character to continue her quest even in the face of opposition and internal agency indifference. And it's the film's thesis that without Maya's efforts, UBL would not have been found.

[Donald Brown]

Turns out Greenwald was right, as usual. His detractors will no doubt prefer to continue dismissing him as 'shrill' and 'strident' rather than admit they were wrong and apologize.

[swo17]

So...Glenn Greenwald was right, as proven by an article written by Gleen Greenwald?

[warren oates]

I thought the film made it clear that although the identity of UBL's courier wasn't established this way, the fact of his existence was. As a plot point this was extremely important: this certainty is what motivates the Jen/Maya character to continue her quest even in the face of opposition and internal agency indifference. And it's the film's thesis that without Maya's efforts, UBL would not have been found.

The best available evidence suggests that the identity of the courier -- his true name -- came much later, possibly through a tip from a liaison intelligence service in the Middle East. With that detail and a little old fashioned detective work, the NSA was able to watch his family's phones, waiting for him to call, which he eventually did, so they could backtrace the signal to Pakistan.

The mere existence of the courier, his relationship with Bin Laden and his nom de guerre, was first established in a legal conventional interrogation by an FBI agent very early on. This information was corroborated by a number of detainees -- high and low in the ranks -- who were subjected to torture in CIA prisons. In retrospect, almost none of that mattered much to the analysts, like the Jen/Maya character who later began the renewed focus on the courier. But at least one somewhat important bit did seem to matter. It was the way that the higher ranking detainees like KSM seemed to be lying about the courier, about his relative importance and about whether he was even still working for Bin Laden or not in 2001 -- information that many of the lower ranking detainees readily confirmed.

So I'd say that the truer formulation would be this: Neither the identity nor the fact of the courier's existence was first established in interrogations tainted by torture. But some measure of the courier's importance may have been. If the film presents/dramatizes details that suggest otherwise, then it could be guilty of at least some of the distortions it's being accused of.

[Donald Brown]

So...Glenn Greenwald was right, as proven by an article written by Gleen Greenwald?

That's lazy.

His piece is chock full of thorough research, facts, citations. Feel free to rebut them if you've the wherewithal. Few do; it's so much easier to attack the messenger when won't can't refute the message.