criterionforum.org

As for the politics, the torture and the blah blah blah whatever of Zero Dark Thirty, going in you know that Bigelow/Foal were given access to the CIA & the administration. Knowing what we know of all governments it's quite clear that any fair minded individual would have to concede that the film would have no other choice than to be a work of propaganda. No, it's not overt, it doesn't beat you over the head, but it's there. Hence, why it's great propaganda. By the virtue alone that nothing was challenged in the film is in and of itself propaganda. Then you have the subtleties...

Spoiler

The agents aka the film's heroes groaning and rolling their eyes like he's an idiot at Obama on tv saying the US is no longer a nation of torture, Bloomberg on tv talking about how 'they hate us for our freedoms', 'muslims don't like cake' the arab american agent/operative as the one person who seemed to take pause with what they were doing and so on and so forth

I realize the counter to this is two fold, one that this was a film told from the CIA point of view and all those things did actually happen. Both correct but that is what makes it propaganda.

With the torture, again it doesn't beat you over the head with it as others have suggested, many probably won't even notice but the fact remains the film does depict torture as being key to obtaining information that led to Bin Laden.

Spoiler

I've read people in some places dismiss the torture by saying he gave up the information over hummus. These people are either lost or being disingenuous as his being disoriented from the torture was what compelled them into trying to trick him into coughing up information.

As a propaganda film I think it's brilliant and very clever. As a film it's a well executed action suspense thriller that will find a nice cult following.

For the people who ignore the politics of it and see Zero Dark Thrity as a film, a pure work of art, I admire you. For you live in a bubble I wish still existed for me and I hope for your sakes never bursts.

So because the filmmakers had access to case files and nothing was "challenged," this film is automatically propaganda?

Funk, if you think the CIA & Obama administration opened their doors less than two years after the event as the 'war on terror' rages on without regard for self interest, but out of the goodness of their heart for the sake of art I can't help you.

I think my post is pretty clear in what it says and why. If you wish to challenge it, point out how I'm wrong, show me how it's not a work of propaganda, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise I'm not going to repeat myself because you're too lazy to do so.

Wading through the nine pages so far, seems no one has linked this bizarre screenwriter roundtable interview. Why Haneke is even in the room with these guys is beyond me and criminal that he only gets to speak a couple of times, but when he does it is with the voice of reason thank goodness. Mark Boal says in response to making choices of factual truth vs. story: "It is entertainment, it's always entertainment." Then minutes later Haneke says in regards to depicting difficult historical figures or events (ie OBL/Hitler, Holocaust): "Anything that treats such a subject as entertainment is for me unspeakable." There's some kind of perverse justice of hearing him say this sitting while next to Boal.

Not sure I want to see Zero Dark Thirty after having made the mistake of seeing Bigelow's last film, which felt like a love letter to war. Which pains me because I'm a big fan of her work, from Loveless to Near Dark to Strange Days. Why she has turned down her current path I am at a loss and it is sad. Every time I see the ZDT trailer in a cinema, it makes me think of the ending of Full Metal Jacket: M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E...

You could say that she's writing love letters to wars, or you could say she's making films about characters who would write love letters to war. I lean towards the latter.

Galen Young wrote:Then minutes later Haneke says in regards to depicting difficult historical figures or events (ie OBL/Hitler, Holocaust): "Anything that treats such a subject as entertainment is for me unspeakable."

When doesn't that guy consider entertainment to be unspeakable though

JMULL222 wrote:You could say that she's writing love letters to wars, or you could say she's making films about characters who would write love letters to war. I lean towards the latter.

But I thought the Maya character is a stand in for Bigelow?

Boal's answers in the THR roundtable are remarkably weak. Haneke's sharply pointed rebuttal was brilliant. I can appreciate the sentiments some are expressing but this utter avoidance to call out ZDT for what it is by playing with semantics and making excuses whenever possible is tough to take.

I thought the film was great and very ambiguous (regardless of Bigelow or Boal's intentions) , but saying "it is entertainment, it's always entertainment" sounds ridiculously glib - Boal really set himself up for an easy takedown.

Should have just kept on avoiding this thread

It just annoys me to see it listed as Zero. Nobody says zero.

knives wrote:It just annoys me to see it listed as Zero. Nobody says zero.

Yes, but "Oh Dark Thirty" sounds like, I don't know, a porn musical?

Naomi Wolf invokes Nazis, badly misunderstands the capabilities of open source research, Hollywood production design and CGI, and pretty much uses the film to be against what she was against before she saw it in her open letter to Bigelow.

The baseless assertion that, because her film's effects are convincing, therefore Bigelow must have shot with access to priceless classified cutting edge military technology (Which somehow saved the production money for its Oscar push and P&A budget?) makes me cringe, betraying a near total absence of knowledge about any of these subjects. The stealth helicopters in the film obviously aren't real. Just because Michael Bay can get F-22 fighters for Transformers doesn't mean that anyone would have access to classified near-experimental technology that nobody would even know about except for the crash in the compound. A week or so after the Bin Laden raid, there were infographics on major news sites and channels that extrapolated the look of the so-called Stealth Hawk choppers from the section of the tail that remained, the look of other stealth aircraft, and the speculative work of a single interested aviation blogger and his illustrator colleague. Scroll back through the history of that tag to read everything you ever wanted to know about what the choppers might look like and how the design we see in the film was first conceived.

Have seen the film and wanted to link to Angelo Muredda's 3.5/4 review that articulates what worked for me and what didn't in the film so much better than I could. I would only add and agree with other posters that Gandolfini was miscast, and distracted from the film.

Christ, that Wolf op-ed is such shit, and so many of the comments are worse - I can't believe how many people are jumping on this bandwagon without actually seeing the movie.

I'll be ducking back out of this discussion after posting this, but Kathryn Bigelow has spoken on the controversy: "Personally, I find it reprehensible, but I think to have omitted it would've been to whitewash history."

I was at that screening (also my second time viewing the film). I'm surprised someone made a news story out of it - Bigelow's statement doesn't feel like revelation, partly because variations of it has been said over and over again by the people involved with this film.

Rather amusing clip from The Colbert Report:
The key question is not whether torture led to bin Laden, but whether it will lead to… OSCAR!

Nine pages in and hardly any comment on the the films worth as entertainment.

I found almost every minute of ZDT riveting. Not at one point did it stall or splutter, which sees credit due to well-conducted, thorough research, cutting and pasting of the events (wholly true or otherwise, we will never know), and knitting it so tightly together. The film consistently builds on suspense and sustains right up until the last minute of the 20min+ compound attack, which I see as large accomplishment seeing how it was no surprise as to the outcome. I was on tenterhooks.

I wasn't settling with Chastain to begin with, but I begun to grow fond of her character as the film ticked on. Some are grumbling that there is a lack of development with the Chastain. Firstly, I don't think there is much complexity to this character. This is hinted at in a dinner scene with Jennifer Ehle (reminiscent of Meryl Streep in one's salad days?) when she attempts to dig around for a personal background. She jokes, "Do you even have any friends?", which seems to weaken Chastain. She falls silent. In another, James Gandolfini attempts to plug her for the same, to which she rebuffs. However, we do find out that she was recruited in High School. High School. This woman wasn't given the chance to develop a life outside of the C.I.A. As far as the film is concerned this woman has no past, no friends, and no consideration of what lies ahead for herself. She lives in the now. This is also communicated at the very end of the film

Spoiler

when the pilot asks her "You must be pretty important, you got the whole plane to yourself! Where do you wanna go?". Chastain looks, staring right through him. An unambiguous question becomes incredibly personal to her. Where does she want to go? The sadness is in the truth...to the next assignment.

I feel that the final scene speaks volumes through its silence.

The year's best American film.

Whoever nixed Bigelow for the Direction nom deserves a clouting.

Saw this last night, and I thought it was quite good, especially the last half-hour, raid section. I"m not going to wade into the whole torture controversy because I didn't feel like torture made up a very big part of the film (I also don't really care whether Americans torture foreign terrorists or not).

I did have one question, and although it has nothing to do with the plot, I'll spoiler tag anyway, just in case:

Spoiler

In the scene where Gandolfini and Chastain are talking in the cafeteria, he implies that she was recuited by the CIA right out of high school, but she's not allowed to say why. Does anyone (maybe someone who's read some of the books that are out) have any idea what she's talking about? Why would the CIA be recruiting high school graduates, and what reason would be so secret she couldn't tell Leon Panetta?

I can't say what the reason for the secret is (there are a number of potentials), but yes the CIA, FBI, and many other military organizations do recruit straight out of high school here.

I vaguely remember some kind of CIA recruiting at my high school in Florida, too.

willoneill wrote:(I also don't really care whether Americans torture foreign terrorists or not).

The CIA's interrogation program has not involved torturing terrorists so much as suspects who allegedly have some ties to terrorism, among other detainees held with no just grounds or accountability for their imprisonment. It's illegal under U.S. and international law, but was declared "legal" by the Justice Department in secret memoranda and approved by the highest members of the Bush administration. I find the idea of this kind of secret legal authority incredibly disturbing. 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.

willoneill wrote:I did have one question, and although it has nothing to do with the plot, I'll spoiler tag anyway, just in case:

Spoiler

In the scene where Gandolfini and Chastain are talking in the cafeteria, he implies that she was recuited by the CIA right out of high school, but she's not allowed to say why. Does anyone (maybe someone who's read some of the books that are out) have any idea what she's talking about? Why would the CIA be recruiting high school graduates, and what reason would be so secret she couldn't tell Leon Panetta?

I wondered about that detail. It's certainly unusual if not exactly unprecedented.

Spoiler

Perhaps she was a stand-out student who did work or had language skills/training that had defense and intelligence applications. Perhaps she had prior extensive experience abroad as a military brat or an oilman's daughter, etc. She may have also been a legacy recruit, as the Agency has in the past offered high school students from employees' families brief summer intern positions. She may have also started out in a position more entry-level than analyst and quickly been promoted internally when she proved her worth (like a number of female analysts/officers who ultimately helped catch Aldrich Ames). The first head of the Bin Laden unit, the now outspoken Michael Scheuer, was known to seek out women in the belief that they made better analysts and had the grit and patience necessary for this kind of long-term hunt. I can't find anything to elaborate on this one way or another in the open source material that's readily available on "Jen," Maya's main model. I take her reluctance to discuss the classified terms of her recruitment in the cafeteria scene to be just another example of her rigorous devotion to her job and her sincere conviction that the facts speak for themselves in her assessment of the compound. She's also not clear on why the director would have a need to know those details and if she was indeed sworn to secrecy on that matter, she's not going to give it up easily over lunch.

Harbinger wrote:Whoever nixed Bigelow for the Direction nom deserves a clouting.

Good post, but do you really think there's some Academy kingpin in a mahogany-paneled office in LA crossing names off a nomination list? She didn't get nominated because too few people nominated her.

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.

Repeatedly? I only counted two depictions of torture, both near the beginning in the first section of the film. If I'm forgetting others, I apologize, but I guess they weren't memorable. I think a lot of people are making far more out of the torture component of this film than is actually there (quoted poster included).