Zero Dark Thirty...

[Ben]

Wishful Thinking About Gorgeous, Murdering CIA Thugs
Michael Moore’s Repellent Defense of “Zero Dark Thirty”

by DAVE CLENNON

Wow!
Michael Moore sure can make up a lot of dialogue for scenes he thinks happened off screen, in “Zero Dark Thirty.”
He freely invents quotes for President Obama, writing words no one else has ever quoted Obama as saying. Here’s Moore’s Obama, scolding the CIA:
“Go find bin Laden – and don’t use torture. Torture is morally wrong. Torture is the coward’s way. C’mon – we’re smart, we’re the USA … Use your brains (like I do) and, goddammit, get to work!”
Were you writing fiction, Mike, or were you basing your script “on first hand accounts of actual events.” (The claim of Bigelow and Mark Boal in “Zero.”) In any case, your made-up dialogue belongs on Saturday Night Live, not in a serious defense of Bigelow and Boal.
Actually, I’d like to believe a scene like the one you wrote did take place, Mike, but it’s more like wishful thinking on your part. After all, what exactly has Obama done to bring these torturing incompetents to justice?
Torture abolitionists aren’t arguing whether or not “Zero Dark Thirty” portrays torture as “effective” (it does, though Bigelow and Boal consistently fudge the point). We know it’s morally wrong and a crime. BUT, like it or not, Mike, there are many Americans who are morally uncomfortable with torture, but they accept it as a necessary, “effective,” tool in the “War on Terror.” If those people learn that torture doesn’t work, they might, eventually, come to condemn it.
Torture abolitionists don’t need you to tell them that arguments about the “effectiveness” of torture can be a trap. Yes, such arguments can distract us from the real point — Torture is a moral abomination AND a crime. Torture abolitionists have been making that point for a long time, since way before Fox’s “24″ went on the air (2001), and made Kiefer Sutherland America’s poster boy for torture.
What are the real reasons torture abolitionists are criticizing “Zero Dark Thirty”?
Because the heroine of the film (Jessica Chastain as Maya) and Maya’s mentor Dan, commit a grievous crime — torture — and they are never, ever, condemned for their crimes, and they are never brought to justice. (Please, Michael, don’t say they’re innocent because Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Woo defined many forms of torture as, well, NOT torture.)
Instead of being indicted, these torturers are presented as heroes, as brave and dedicated “detectives.” No one gives Maya or Dan the kind of scolding, which you envision Obama giving, off-screen. Chastain’s Maya, is presented as especially admirable, a feminist action hero. She not only gets her man; she also muscles CIA male chauvinists out of the way, as she pushes ahead on “The Greatest Manhunt in History.” And we’re supposed to empathize and cheer her on.
But along the way on her quest, she learns the fine art of torture, from Dan. And she learns fast. When she’s left alone with their first victim, Ammar, he begs her for help. Having learned to stop flinching at Dan’s cruelty, she coldly replies, “You can help yourself by being truthful.”
Later, Chastain gets to supervise the torture of her own detainee, Faraj. She has him punched out, as she shouts, “You’re not being fulsome in your replies!” Then she has Faraj waterboarded.
We’ve already seen these “enhanced techniques” used on Ammar. But Chastain’s Maya employs a new one:
She orders a liquid — a thick, brown liquid — to be poured into a funnel which has been forced into Faraj’s mouth and rammed partway down his throat. Some of this brown liquid will spill from the sides of Faraj’s mouth; some will go into his lungs, the rest, into his stomach.
Sadly, for Maya, Faraj refuses to give up any critical information. She complains to her mentor about Faraj’s resistance, adding, “And that’s using every measure we have.” Dan replies, “Either he’s gonna keep withholding, or he’s gonna die from the pressure you’re putting on him.” Maya then looks hopefully at Dan and says, “Hey, you wanna take a run at him?” Dan declines, so Chastain has to resume putting “pressure” on Faraj by herself.
We don’t see Chastain torturing Faraj on-screen any more, but, in later dialogue, we learn that her “pressure” has finally killed him. Her station colleague, Jessica, sees that Maya is frustrated in her quest. Jessica tries to snap her out of it: ”So Faraj went south on you. It happens.” With that comment, we learn that Chastain/Maya’s frustration isn’t about Faraj STILL withholding (How many more times did she pour that thick brown liquid down his throat?). She’s upset because her detainee, still withholding, “went south” on her. Do you get it, Michael? Your heroine murdered another human being, in the course of torturing him. And she is never called to account.
Torture is not a feminist act, and it’s way out of line to imply that Chastain — this gorgeous, murdering CIA thug — is a feminist hero.
Out of line and disappointing. In “Capitalism, a Love Story,” you interviewed a priest who was based in your home town of Flint. Memorable scene. I’d like to know how he would interpret this film’s moral stance on torture.
Because, Mike, torture isn’t a Left-Right thing. It’s a Good-Evil thing.

Dave Clennon is a long-time actor and political agitator, probably best known for portraying the advertising mogul Miles Drentell on ABC’s thirtysomething. His performance as Miles earned him an Emmy nomination. His more recent projects include Syriana, Grey’s Anatomy and Weeds. He won an Emmy for his performance in an episode of HBO’s Dream On

[fivekatz]

I have not seen the film but I do believe that torture as a technique to gather actionable intelligence has been pretty much debunked by everybody but Dick Cheney at this point.

Inside these threads I have read mention of the use of drones. And I confess that I am very conflicted about drones and how they have been used.

OTOH, when Dick Cheney in late September 2001 talked about how this war with terrorism was going to have to be fought in the shadows and on the dark side, I did envision that to mean the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afaganistan for a decade.

I did believe it meant as distasteful as it is that it meant assignation of terrorist groups as they were infiltrated by spies, police and military intelligence working in concert. I did not have the imagination to see the use of drones or the hazard of "missing" the target.

Now IMHO torture is clearly a stupid track, not simply on basis of moral factors but because the chances of gaining misinformation to make the torture stop is extraordiarily high.

The use of drones have their own set of moral questions, as did the squad of navy seals that Obama sent in to murder Bin Laden. But this not a "war" of any convention and aggressive pursuit of it will and should drive harsh critique from a sector of the populace, failure to do everything possible to slow terrorism should and would be an attack with even greater fervor of those that sat by and did nothing.

If this movie does somehow glorify torture as a useful tool in the defense of the innocent against the threat of terrorism than it is a misguided storyline. Too much evidence exists that in recent years the US garnered far more misinformation than actionable intelligence.

It is sad that world can not be a more peaceful place, and it is sad that our Congress gave away powers to the Executive branch after 9/11 that no executive will abandon because be it Bush or Obama, or Romney or one of us, we believe we should have the power in hand because we would never do wrong with it.

[robertlouis]

Has anyone who's posted on this thread actually seen the film?

If not, keep your powder dry until you've paid your folding money to watch it.

I'm planning to see it next week - going to see Lincoln tonight.

[Odelay]

RL, I saw it. It was entertaining like Star Wars was entertaining. All the ink spilled on it, outside of normal film critique columns, has been a waste. I'm surprised at how many pundits took the bait on this troll piece. But again, I enjoyed the movie - sort of edge of the seat stuff.

[Stavros]

Has anyone who's posted on this thread actually seen the film?
If not, keep your powder dry until you've paid your folding money to watch it.
I'm planning to see it next week - going to see Lincoln tonight.

I saw it this evening -too long, episodic construction, often incoherent or poor dialogue. I thought Jessica Chastain was wasted in this, she has the making of a fine actress, she just needs a stronger part.

There are some flaws or questionable moments -the prisoner being interrogated at the beginning caves in, but when offered a cigarette he takes it, whereas if he were a Jihadi he would not smoke -most of them, so in this case if its based on an actual incident it could be true.

The forms of torture being shown are grim but the reality is that prisoners were treated much worse than is shown in the film.

The attack on the Khobar Towers did not begin with gunmen opening fire inside the building, it was a truck bomb. The Clinton administration believed it was organised by the Iranians not al-Qaeda, whereas some commentators think it was al-Qaeda financed/organised using Saudi nationals who shared the aim of forcing the US military presence out of Saudi Arabia. The film does not actually point a finger of blame, but as bin Laden is the focus of the film the default suggestion is that it was an AQ job.

In the Marriot when the bomb goes off, the lights in the restaurant stay on -maybe, but usually a bomb cuts the power in the building affected; imdb also points out that all the electricity around the bin Laden compound was cut so not only could there not have been light on inside the house, but also not in the neighbourhood although this is shown.

I thought a segment of the SEALS landed on the third floor and entered it from there -?

At least there was no note of triumphalism, the fact that the mission was accomplished is dealt with in a matter of fact way.

[flabbybody]

He didn't cave knowingly. They cleverly duped him into thinking he'd given up valuable info during his prior interrogation by feeding him facts they obtained elsewhere. Simple put, they broke him. The torture erased some of his memory and he gave them new names he thought they already had.

Stavros I think some of your factual objections do not detract from the central story that was effectively conveyed. I'm sure American audiences are not very familiar with the smoking habits of your average run of the mill terrorist.
I like the fact that the film neither condemns nor condones aggressive interrogation. Would Bin Laden have been found with more humane techniques? The movie lets you make your own conclusion.

[Odelay]

I saw it this evening -too long, episodic construction, often incoherent or poor dialogue. I thought Jessica Chastain was wasted in this, she has the making of a fine actress, she just needs a stronger part.

Totally agree with the criticism about the length. If it gets best picture it will be complete utter bullshit. You can't be best picture with editing that's this bad. I half disagree about Chastain. She looks like an okay actress and may develop into something better, but she's being way over-hyped. Again, best actress? Not for me.

The point that you make about the lack of triumphalism is a good one. It's sort of a saving grace for this movie. Not showing the disposal of Bin Laden's body was a good decision.

[Stavros]

He didn't cave knowingly. They cleverly duped him into thinking he'd given up valuable info during his prior interrogation by feeding him facts they obtained elsewhere. Simple put, they broke him. The torture erased some of his memory and he gave them new names he thought they already had.

Stavros I think some of your factual objections do not detract from the central story that was effectively conveyed. I'm sure American audiences are not very familiar with the smoking habits of your average run of the mill terrorist.
I like the fact that the film neither condemns nor condones aggressive interrogation. Would Bin Laden have been found with more humane techniques? The movie lets you make your own conclusion.

I have been told off in the past by friends exasperated by my nit-picking...as it happens, I think the real event was an awesome display of American military power, as well as the intelligence that led them to Abbottabad. I don't know what the full truth of it is, or how much, or any useful intelligence was obtained from 'torture' however you define it. I think that boots on the ground in Pakistan must have been crucial. We may never know if bin Laden was being protected by someone in the ISI, or whether Pakistan really had no idea he was there, but that is all history now. I was not impressed with Bigelow's film The Hurt Locker, maybe there is something too brittle about her style of film-making.

[Prospero]

I agree with the remarks about length. I do NOT think the film condones torture. I do personally have problems with films which blur th line between fact and fiction as this film clearly does. (A much more notorious example was JFK by Oliver Stone which if watched by people with no real background knowledge of the events might persuade them that the Kennedy Assassination was a plot hatched by LBJ) The Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic (and self confessed obscurantist) Slavoj Zizek wrote an interesting piece on the topic in the Guardian a few days ago. I don't agree. I don't think audiences need to be led by the nose on the moral rights or wrongs of torture. The argument about its effectiveness is a long, long one. In The Merchant of Venice for instance Portia is given these lines: "Ay, but I fear you speak upon the rack, Where men enforcèd do speak anything."

This is Zizek article.

"Here is how, in a letter to the LA Times, Kathryn Bigelow justified Zero Dark Thirty's depicting of the torture methods used by government agents to catch and kill Osama bin Laden:

"Those of us who work in the arts know that depiction is not endorsement. If it was, no artist would be able to paint inhumane practices, no author could write about them, and no filmmaker could delve into the thorny subjects of our time."

Really? One doesn't need to be a moralist, or naive about the urgencies of fighting terrorist attacks, to think that torturing a human being is in itself something so profoundly shattering that to depict it neutrally – ie to neutralise this shattering dimension – is already a kind of endorsement.

Imagine a documentary that depicted the Holocaust in a cool, disinterested way as a big industrial-logistic operation, focusing on the technical problems involved (transport, disposal of the bodies, preventing panic among the prisoners to be gassed). Such a film would either embody a deeply immoral fascination with its topic, or it would count on the obscene neutrality of its style to engender dismay and horror in spectators. Where is Bigelow here?

Without a shadow of a doubt, she is on the side of the normalisation of torture. When Maya, the film's heroine, first witnesses waterboarding, she is a little shocked, but she quickly learns the ropes; later in the film she coldly blackmails a high-level Arab prisoner with, "If you don't talk to us, we will deliver you to Israel". Her fanatical pursuit of Bin Laden helps to neutralise ordinary moral qualms. Much more ominous is her partner, a young, bearded CIA agent who masters perfectly the art of passing glibly from torture to friendliness once the victim is broken (lighting his cigarette and sharing jokes). There is something deeply disturbing in how, later, he changes from a torturer in jeans to a well-dressed Washington bureaucrat. This is normalisation at its purest and most efficient – there is a little unease, more about the hurt sensitivity than about ethics, but the job has to be done. This awareness of the torturer's hurt sensitivity as the (main) human cost of torture ensures that the film is not cheap rightwing propaganda: the psychological complexity is depicted so that liberals can enjoy the film without feeling guilty. This is why Zero Dark Thirty is much worse than 24, where at least Jack Bauer breaks down at the series finale.

The debate about whether waterboarding is torture or not should be dropped as an obvious nonsense: why, if not by causing pain and fear of death, does waterboarding make hardened terrorist-suspects talk? The replacement of the word "torture" with "enhanced interrogation technique" is an extension of politically correct logic: brutal violence practised by the state is made publicly acceptable when language is changed.

The most obscene defence of the film is the claim that Bigelow rejects cheap moralism and soberly presents the reality of the anti-terrorist struggle, raising difficult questions and thus compelling us to think (plus, some critics add, she "deconstructs" feminine cliches – Maya displays no sentimentality, she is tough and dedicated to her task like men). But with torture, one should not "think". A parallel with rape imposes itself here: what if a film were to show a brutal rape in the same neutral way, claiming that one should avoid cheap moralism and start to think about rape in all its complexity? Our guts tell us that there is something terribly wrong here; I would like to live in a society where rape is simply considered unacceptable, so that anyone who argues for it appears an eccentric idiot, not in a society where one has to argue against it. The same goes for torture: a sign of ethical progress is the fact that torture is "dogmatically" rejected as repulsive, without any need for argument.

So what about the "realist" argument: torture has always existed, so is it not better to at least talk publicly about it? This, exactly, is the problem. If torture was always going on, why are those in power now telling us openly about it? There is only one answer: to normalise it, to lower our ethical standards.

Torture saves lives? Maybe, but for sure it loses souls – and its most obscene justification is to claim that a true hero is ready to forsake his or her soul to save the lives of his or her countrymen. The normalisation of torture in Zero Dark Thirty is a sign of the moral vacuum we are gradually approaching. If there is any doubt about this, try to imagine a major Hollywood film depicting torture in a similar way 20 years ago. It is unthinkable.

[Stavros]

I can't be the only person who finds Zizek's arguments disappearing without trace by the end of the article -is this man so ignorant of what has been on tv and the cinema that he doesn't have a grasp of what has been 'normalised' and what remains to shock? The literary critic and historian Lionel Trilling remarked I think in the 1960s or 1970s how few of his students were shocked by Conrad's Heart of Darkness, as he had been when he first read it as a young man. In the interveing years, the violence of the book had become commonplace, if replaced as fiction by the reality of war reporting on tv from Vietnam.

If tv and films did not feel they need to 'break new ground' through shocking violence -which is what it mostly is, vide Utopia on Channel 4- the issue of torture would exist in a different, and possibly more morally determined climate of opinion. Where sex is concerned, the timidity of tv and film-Steve McQueen's Shame being an honourable exception- means that if people want to see it they access porn on the internet, and there is currently a debate in the UK on the impact porn is having on the way in which young people learn about their bodies and sex, and is considered, shall we say, 'unhelpful'.

Isn't there an irony in a philosopher debating torture? If he were a Kantian, the categorical imperative never to lie would be the benchmark: asked a question by an interrogator, the prisoner would simply say 'Yes, I know Abu Ahmed, he lives in Abbottabad', case closed. There was a multiple rape scene in The Baby of Macon by that notorious fraud Peter Greenaway, and the rape scene in Accused was a genuinely distressing scene in a powerful fim, so the crime has been dealt with in cinema. But cruelty can take many forms, it is a common thread running through the films of Bresson, for example. In sum, a superficial article by a superficial intellect.