And yet, director Kathryn Bigelow – working from a taut screenplay by Mark Boal – pulls it off spectacularly. It's absurd that she wasn't nominated for Best Director.
What’s also remarkable about the directing is that there are stretches of this 2 1/2 hour film where nothing much happens and still you’re riveted to the screen. Compare that to BATTLESHIP where you’re bored out of your mind during action scenes.
The final sequence, when the Navy Seals break into the compound and complete their manhunt is thrilling and gut wrenching. The way it’s shot you really feel like you’re there with them. At one point I tried to adjust my night goggles. And the fact that it’s a true story – we really did kill bin Laden; it wasn’t just another Quentin Tarantino what-if fantasy, made it all the more poignant. Again, how could Ms. Bigelow not get a Best Director nomination?
There has been a lot of controversy over ZERO DARK THIRTY, primarily over the interrogation scenes. Maybe that's why Kathryn got snubbed. Hollywood doesn't believe in torture unless they can dish it out.
The glimpses of torture in ZDT are pretty disturbing, but it’s not like you’re watching HOSTEL. The government of course denies that these methods of waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other indignities ever happened. Right. These terrorists divulged all this information when playing Cranium. “Okay, you landed on a yellow. Current Events. Answer this question: Osama bin Laden’s chief courier was…? Yeah, that’s how we broke the prisoners.
But the scenes will spark debate over the necessity and morality of using torture. I leave it to others to engage in that debate... probably in the comments section.
ZERO DARK THIRTY deals with bureaucracy, persistence, and dedication. It’s kind of like ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN except Deep Throat has to be chained and thrown into a box before he talks. It’s been playing in Los Angeles and New York and opened nationwide on Friday. Well worth seeing. Like I said -- I think it was the movie of the year (although I reserve the right to change my mind once I’ve seen THE THREE STOOGES).
46 comments :
Ken,
So your torture theory is that the Jews Torquemada tortured into renouncing Judaism and admitting that Christ was God really always believe that Judaism was evil and Christ was God, they just wouldn't admit it without proper interrogation?
Torture has never ever been about getting information. It has been about getting the tortured to tell the torturers what they want to hear.
If you can't be bothered to actually, you know, look into how effective torture is at producing reliable and useful information, please don't comment on it at all.
I'm ashamed I've recommended this blog to people.
Yeah, Zach, that's exactly what he said. (rolleyes)
Yes, the torture argument apart, as a piece of film-making it's extremely well put-together, and in a very short time. A story like that is a gift for a film-maker.
Saying that torture worked is ignorant in the extreme. Ken, you really need to educate yourself on this issue.
Another big snub was for cinematography. Once you know HOW they shot the night vision sequence you'll know what I mean. Apparently filming through a night vision lens doesn't look "unearthly" enough. So the DP figured out a hack using the infrared sensors on the "prop" security cameras used in the interrogation scenes. The guy deserves a tech Oscar for that.
Show me in Ken's post where he was commenting or taking sides regarding the morality of torture. All he did was point out that the film opens up a forum for debate on whether our government agents and agencies felt justifed in doing what they did to get the information they needed to carry out the mission -- and if you're a regular follower of his blog, you'll recognize his sarcasm at the end of the paragraph where he discusses it when you read it.
First off, anyone who wants to unsubscribe or not come back, fine. You either find value in what I have to say or find another blog more to your liking. There's no hard feelings.
But read the posts more carefully before you blast me.
Here's all I said:
Despite the government's denial, I believe they did torture these detainees.
The torture scenes are disturbing to watch.
I'm staying out of the debate.
Now where in the statement "I leave it for others to engage in that debate" did I say or even infer that I condone torture tactics?
I don't, for the record. But that's not even the point. Zach in particular, please find someone else to read.
...and I'm ashamed that my doggie has the same name as that first guy. (true) My doggie is smarter than that. (also true)
I liked the movie for the most part. I really didn't care for the Maya character, however. I know she is based on a real person but it's important to keep in mind that she is a composite of the many people who worked for nearly a decade to bring Bin Laden to justice. It wasn't just one smart, attractive, aggressive woman who did all of the work.
I rolled my eyes at the scenes where she screamed at her boss, wrote on another boss' window, told Gandolfini she was the MF'er who has been hunting him, and told the SEAL's "you're going to kill him for ME!" The attempt to shove Maya down our throats at every opportunity detracts from an otherwise pretty good movie.
I love Zach's "I'm taking my marbles and going home," routine. Bu-bye.
To the point, another actor who contributed to this superb film is Jason Clarke as the CIA interrogator. The complexities of his character were well-handled.
1. I agree that it's a riveting, best-director-worthy movie.
2. Hyperbole aside, you're totally missing the point on why people are upset, Ken -- Nobody denies that torture took place, not even the government. This is a complete straw man argument. But ZD30 portrays torture as a necessary element in bringing down Bin Laden, and the government disputes this outright.
Why is this dangerous and potentially irresponsible?
Look at your joke -- " Right. These terrorists divulged all this information when playing Cranium... Yeah, that’s how we broke the prisoners."
The truth is that you (and I) have no clue how terrorists give up information and your point of view is likely shaped by the media you have consumed addressing the subject. What if torture led to false leads that wasted time and lives?
You can't overlook the potential effect of justifying torture because it led to public enemy #1 even if it was true... and if it's completely fabricated as the government says?
Ken-
The gov't may deny that they've tortured but they have never denied that "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used.
You have to admire the wordsmith that created a much softer-sounding term.
Ken: The place where you say torture was effective is right here:
"Right. These terrorists divulged all this information when playing Cranium. “Okay, you landed on a yellow. Current Events. Answer this question: Osama bin Laden’s chief courier was…? Yeah, that’s how we broke the prisoners. "
Also, while Bush's government denied that the practices they used were torture, they did not deny that they were used. And I think the Obama administration is on record that they are indeed torture and has banned their use.
Finally, when did morality come down to "the end justifies the means"? Even if torture did contribute to finding Osama (a position that is disputed), that doesn't make it all right or moral.
Friday question: recently you noted that while in the past show staffs were small and freelance writers were a source of most scripts (at least first drafts) now most shows are room written. Can you describe why? What are the pluses and minuses of having a show staff written versus using freelancers?
Bigelo herself now comments on the torture in an essay in today's L.A. Times. http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-74040308/
She emphasizes that she included the torture scenes NOT because they worked, but because they were true - they were part of the story.
I thought the film really did glorify the desk worker analysts like Maya, which was a refreshing take, but also gave the film a more documentary feel.
That's probably why "Argo" beat it for the Golden Globes to foreign eyes - it's just a much more traditional Hollywood style action piece, but I doubt there's any truth to a scene where a plane is being chased down before it took off. Watching that was probably a torture for anyone who really knew the facts.
So how accurate is Zero Dark Thirty? And do you care?
Afraid the best I've managed is this account by Peter Bergen, author of Manhunt - supposedly an authoritative book - and unpaid technical advisor on the film.
And here's an interview with Ken Taylor - Canadian ambassador to Iran and star of Argo - about Argo.
I LOVED this movie. Much better than any other movie I saw this year, including Oscar-nominated Argo and Silver Linings Playbook, both good, solid movies but not unique and outstanding like Zero Dark Thirty.
It reminded me of movies from the '70s like The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, in which the director's distinct mark was on every scene and the world-creation was all-encompassing.
The Master also had a distinct feel, but it lacked a plot, pacing, and any empathetic characters. Zero Dark Thirty had everything. Bigelow got robbed in not being nominated for best director.
As you said, everyone already knew the ending, but I was still biting my nails as the Seals got to Bin Laden's compound and made their way inside. I had no idea it was close to a three-hour movie until after I left the theater and checked the time. The movie was gripping and I didn't want it to end.
I saw Zero Dark Thirty last week and my review would be pretty much the same. Great movie, gripping, etc. I think the controversy over the torture is a little ridiculous. Does anyone really doubt that it happened? The government has admitted they used those techniques. Should the movie have left that out in order to make a "statement"? What sense would that have made?
And I also don't understand the criticism you're receiving, Ken. I didn't read anything in your review that made me think that you condone torture, just that you really didn't think the CIA was able to get their information without doing it. And I'm pretty sure you're right.
This is where people's ideals and reality get confused. Does torture often lead to bad information? Sure. Is it reliable? Absolutely not. Can you sometimes get the right information? Definitely. Do I agree with it? No. Well, except maybe in cases where people take themselves WAY too seriously and jump on people for no good reason.
Re. Argo: I read the nonfiction book Argo, written by the CIA guy, Antonio Mendez. (Kind of sad they couldn't have a Latino actor play Mendez in the movie, especially because Affleck's performance was so wooden.)
Yes, the Canadian govt. was much more involved than the movie made it out to be. And the American escapees actually were separated, four of them hiding out in one house and two in another house in Iran. (Or maybe there were three different houses; I forget.) The stuff in Hollywood in which they set up the fake movie was portrayed pretty accurately.
But the last third of the movie was quite fictional. There were, at most, minor problems on the day they left. The airplane was delayed an hour or two for mechanical difficulties or something, but all the drama getting to the airport and in the airport as shown in the movie was fictional.
Remember DAY OF THE JACKAL? Another book/movie where we knew the ending yet were on tenterhooks anyway.
As for torture, try watching a Hallmark movie some time.
I was somewhat tortured by the film's non-mention (or maybe I blinked) of the year-long (as some have reported), intense rehearsal of the siege by the Seal Team. Yeah, the torture thing, I get it, but to me, that degree of preparation is an interesting part of the story.
It may have been the martinis, but all I seem to remember is a two-minute scene where a cute tootsie shows up at camp to tell a few bearded guys tossing a football to start their engines. What?
The final compound scene was, without doubt, riveting. But gee whiz, the real thing could never have been accomplished so successfully without the focussed dedication by superhumans to the rehearsal and preparation.
But I liked the movie.
I was somewhat tortured by the film's non-mention (or maybe I blinked) of the year-long (as some have reported), intense rehearsal of the siege by the Seal Team. Yeah, the torture thing, I get it, but to me, that degree of preparation is an interesting part of the story.
It may have been the martinis, but all I seem to remember is a two-minute scene where a cute tootsie shows up at camp to tell a few bearded guys tossing a football to start their engines. What?
The final compound scene was, without doubt, riveting. But gee whiz, the real thing could never have been accomplished so successfully without the focussed dedication by superhumans to the rehearsal and preparation.
But I liked the movie.
Irony Dept. :
Remember when this movie was first announced a couple of years back?
All the right-wing sites (the Breitbart family in particular) were beside themselves over the possibility that Zero Dark Thirty would be released right before the Presidential election, and make their #1 hate figure, President Obama, unbeatable?
They were unalterably convinced of this, and denounced Bigelow up, down, and all around for even thinking of making this picture.
The Breitbarties bought into every rumor that they came across (or made up) that the Government and Defense Dept. were helping to make the Osama raid into an Obama infomercial.
So now it's after the election, and Obama won without the movie even coming out.
And ZDT is finally released, and who do you think its biggest fans are?
The Breitbarties!
And why are they its biggest fans?
Because they believe that ZDT is an endorsement - even a vindication - of torture!
Which (here comes the ultimate irony) is exactly what the far-lefties who are complaining about it are saying!
So three cheers for Kathryn Bigelow, who has truly accomplished the impossible -
- getting the wingnuts, left and right, to agree on something!
Now if she (or anybody) could figure out a way to get those idiots to leave the rest of us the hell alone ...
This movie takes place in Dick-Cheney-Fantasyland. We already know what took place in these black sites because we've seen pictures: the torturers of Abu Ghraib were, don't forget, operating under CIA instruction and oversight, and we all know what that looked like.
Read the definitive account of what actually happened, "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer. The actual criminal officers, unlike the ones portrayed in this movie, tortured for the only reason that anybody ever tortures: because they were sadists who wanted to have a little fun. That's why they failed to find Bin Laden year after year.
If you want to know how the later, successful non-torturers eventually got the real, usable intelligence, just watch any episode of Homicide: you convince the other person that it's in their best interest to tell you the truth. That's the only thing that ever has worked or will work.
This movie is utterly vile. It's very visceral and I can understand how it sucks in people who don't know the true story, but that makes it all the more reprehensible.
Some people don't like the idea that the film argues that torture works, and has worked. Some people don't like that the film doesn't give them the clean talking point that Obama got Bin Laden and Bush was evil and wrong, since the torture that got the info happened while Bush was president. Some people don't like that Obama was given too small a role in the film. Too much Hillary-influence?
On a second point, has Claire Danes gotten a larger role recently? She appears to be an analyst who does some interrogations.
You have to take all Hollywood Movies that are "based on real events" with a large grain of salt. Argo is another prime example. Most the the things depicted in the movie didn't happen. The real crime is what did is more compelling than the contrived movie version of the true story, especially the hooky, cliched ending. Read the book by Tony Mendez, one the TWO CIA operatives involved in the extraction. It's much more satisfying.
Ken, as a loyal reader of your blog I was very interested in your review of Zero Dark Thirty. And since you practically invited comments on the “torture” issue, here are mine.
Were the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” necessary, effective, legal? In my view, as the former chief spokesman for that secret organization…yes, yes, and yes. I could write a book about it. In fact I did, called "Hard Measures" – with Jose Rodriguez, who led the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center from 2002 to 2004 and the National Clandestine Service until 2007.
As several other people have commented, the U.S. government didn’t deny that “waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other indignities ever happened.”
But what did happen to senior Al Qaeda terrorists doesn’t match the interrogation scenes in the movie.
Jose (and I) had a piece in the Washington Post January 7 explaining how Bigelow and Boal got some stuff right and some stuff wrong in the movie. Getting any stuff right about the CIA makes a film well worth seeing.
The filmmakers got a little carried away (ok, a lot carried away) with their interrogation scenes. The truth about how and why the CIA was so mean to those nice terrorists would make a good movie – but perhaps not as dramatic of one as Zero Dark Thirty.
A more accurate movie about the torture program would have been a grotesque comedy that showed grown men resorting to puppet shows and dance routines and fourth-rate sexual indignities dreamed up after spending too much time reading spank mags and BDSM sites – and doing this thousands of times to thousands of people, all over the world, "accidentally" murdering hundreds of people in the process, going to war by mistake at least once as a result of it, and having no clue half the time who they're interrogating (less than 10 percent of "terror suspects" at places like Bagram were arrested by American forces; most of the rest were brought in by Afghanis or other foreigners in exchange for bounties).
Zero Dark Thirty is like a gorgeously-rendered monument to the fatal political miscalculation we made during the Bush years. It's a cliché but it's true: Bin Laden wanted us to make this mistake. He wanted America to respond to him by throwing off our carefully-crafted blanket of global respectability to reveal a brutal, repressive hypocrite underneath. He wanted us to stop pretending that we're the country that handcuffs you and reads you your rights instead of extralegally drone-bombing you from the stratosphere, or putting one in your brain in an Egyptian basement somewhere.
The only way we were ever going to win the War on Terror was to win a long, slow, political battle, in which we proved bin Laden wrong, where we allowed people in the Middle East to assess us as a nation and decide we didn't deserve to be mass-murdered. To use another cliché, we needed to win hearts and minds. We had to make lunatics like bin Laden pariahs among their own people, which in turn would make genuine terrorists easier to catch with the aid of genuinely sympathetic local populations.
Instead, we turned people like bin Laden into heroes. Just like Marlowe in The Long Goodbye, there were a lot of people in the Middle East who were on the knife-edge about America after 9/11. Yes, we were hated for supporting Israel, but the number of people willing to suicide-bomb us was still a tiny minority.
The EIT program changed that. We tortured and humiliated thousands of people across the world. We did it on camera, in pictures that everyone in the Middle East can watch over and over again on the Internet. We became notorious for a vast kidnapping program we called by the harmless-sounding term "rendition," and more lately for an endless campaign of extralegal drone attacks, through which 800 innocent people have died in Afghanistan alone in the last four years.
Now we have this movie out that seems to celebrate the use of torture against Arabs, and we're nominating it for Oscars. Bigelow can say that "depiction is not endorsement," but how does she think audiences will receive it in the Middle East? Are they going to sell lots of popcorn in Riyadh and Kabul during the waterboarding scenes?
But forget about all of that. The real problem is what this movie says about us. When those Abu Ghraib pictures came out years ago, at least half of America was horrified. The national consensus (albeit by a frighteningly slim margin) was that this wasn't who we, as a people, wanted to be. But now, four years later, Zero Dark Thirty comes out, and it seems that that we've become so blunted to the horror of what we did and/or are doing at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Bagram and other places that we can accept it, provided we get a boffo movie out of it.
That's pathetic. Bin Laden was maybe the most humorless person who ever lived, but he has to be laughing from the afterlife. We make an incredible movie that celebrates his death – a movie so good it'll be seen everywhere in the world – and all it does is prove him right about us.
What I do not get is how the Obama administration can give this information to the people who developed this move and then turn around to announce that this very information is classified?
Huh?
I am sure this film is very good. I liked Hurt Locker a lot. I cannot watch this film ever because of how the Obama administration actively supported its development while actively opposing people who are want to review the Bin Laden evidence.
"How do you make a gripping thriller when everyone in the world knows the outcome?"
Apollo 13
Bill Harlow said..."Were the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” necessary, effective, legal? In my view, as the former chief spokesman for that secret organization…yes, yes, and yes."
Have you ever read the Constitution? It does not say 'torture' is illegal, it says "cruel and unusual punishment" is illegal - a far more general and sweeping term which includes not JUST torture but far less extreme measures like not giving prisoners enough food to eat.
So uh, torture IS - under the Constitution - illegal - ESPECIALLY by those who take an oath to 'protect and defend the Constitution' (perhaps as a PR person you evaded having to do that). If the supposed legal 'loophole' of the US government shipping people off to be tortured in foreign countries is not illegal - it should be - it COMPLETELY violates the spirit of the Constitution.
As for torture being effective, if you have an example of one or more famous historical battles that were won via specific intelligence gathered via torture, I'd be interested to know about it.
In regards to Zero Dark Thirty - I won't contribute one red cent to a film that even MIGHT be promoting torture as a viable tactic for a supposedly civilized country to be participating in.
Oh, surely the author is an expert on torture -- he worked on Frazier, after all, and watching that is torture by any measure. For normal people, anyhow.
My fervent wish is that people would stop acting like Bush invented torture. For God's sake, people, go read a history book and discover that you don't get information out of the enemy by coddling them. Better yet, go read some firsthand accounts of 9/11 and remember what the terrorists did that day.
I love the internet. Ken's basically offhand remark has turned into him condoning the torture of thousands.
People need to get a grip and get off their high horses for a minute.
Saying the CIA got valuable information through "torture" is NOT an endorsement of it. It's simply an acceptance of reality. Something that some commenters here don't seem to be familiar with.
I think I saw a different ZDT than you folks did.
I saw a poorly written film with one dimensional characters that I could care less about. I believe Bigelow was not snubbed, her film wasn't good enough that she should be considered for best director. I'm not even clear why Ms. Chastain's weak acting skills are even being considered. The torture scenes were dull and predictable, the lone wolf against the world nonsense did little to move the plot along....
I was extremely disappointed in this film as I was expecting a much better movie than what I saw....after several moments that I believe were meant to be serious the folks in the theater I was in burst out laughing. I can only assume from the ridiculous lines they were hearing.
I did not see the movie in the same way you did, but I do appreciate your review. I am sorry I did not see it that way. Your blog is great, and I enjoy your words.
Tim W. says: "Saying the CIA got valuable information through "torture" is NOT an endorsement of it. It's simply an acceptance of reality. Something that some commenters here don't seem to be familiar with."
The CIA itself says that it got no valuable information through torture. So do the congressional intelligence communities. So does every journalist who has interviewed those involved. The most prominent person saying otherwise is the director of "Point Break".
Who's divorced from reality here?
I understand why people want this movie to be true. It's a fun, macho fantasy. But that's all it is.
From what I understand, torture is an ineffective method for extracting information, since a person will say anything to stop the pain - if they're even capable of thinking clearly at that point. We used to prosecute people who tortured - now it seems to be a badge of honor among some.
Mike said...
"Some people don't like that the film doesn't give them the clean talking point that Obama got Bin Laden and Bush was evil and wrong, since the torture that got the info happened while Bush was president."
And yet it was Obama who "got" Bin Laden - that's no talking point, it's a fact. The way you can tell is that if Bush had done it, Republicans would have established a national holiday, erected statues with bulging crotches, and passed a bill to place his likeness on Mount Rushmore.
Knowingly lying this nation into war and causing the deaths and maimings of countless thousands - then not showing an ounce of remorse but actually joking about it ("Now where are those WMDs? Heh heh heh..") constitutes evil in my book.
I read one the Bin Laden books written by the Seal Team 6 guy who describes the "Maya" character as very shy and quiet. She was on the plane to Pakistan with them and in the hanger when they go back from the mission.
@Matt Bird
Why on earth would I WANT it to be true? A "macho fantasy"? Are you kidding me? Personally, I've read reports that torture gets mixed results, not none. Again, that's not condoning anything nor is it some sort of bizarre wish fulfillment. EVerything I've read says that while they've gotten information from "torture", it's not reliable and probably does more harm than good. I don't like it. I wish it never happened. But I think it's pretty naive to say NO good information has come from it.
I don't think I will see this movie. I have been in the military and it seems movie directors generally don't get the interaction of soldiers correct in my opinion. I would rather see a documentary on this that would be more interesting to me.
I thought it was a well-done movie, but it never felt totally morally honest. You run that risk when you write a script based on what the CIA chooses to tell you and chooses to declassify. It can, then, at best be only a version of the truth. And, for a topic that is so recent, that so thoroughly still shapes people's beliefs on torture and the 'war on terrorism,' this movie will become the version of the truth that everyone accepts. And, for that, it feels too much like a PSA. A very well-done PSA.
This is one of the best movie of all time. It gives you feeling of real time, like you being there all the time with Maya. The actress is astonishing. A powerhouse performance!! Deserve to win all awards out there. This is a must watch movie if anyone is interested in knowing how US reached to Mr Laden. Patience is the key to success. Great movie!!
Sometimes a movie should be watched without too much emphasis on the authenticity of the facts. Zero Dark Thirty is an attempt to showcase (even though it may not be entirely true) the biggest manhunt in history. Director Bigelow does more than justice to a impeccable script by keeping it as close to reality as she can. Maya (Chastain) has been spectacular in the entire movie, be it the initial timid looking fresh recruit or the bold and dynamic agent taking on superiors in making decisions that though to conclude upon. The rest of the star cast have been outstanding too. Some may complain that the movie is slow or could have been shorter, but I believe, the scenes have been so meticulously shot that can one feel the plethora of emotions each character is going through. The movies editing is perfect and the background score adds on to the intensity. Overall, Zero Dark Thirty is masterpiece and a perfect follow up to The Hurt Locker. Well done Bigelow!!!
I believe Bigelow was not snubbed, her film wasn't good enough that she should be considered for best director
Post a Comment