Man, I wish I had waited to make my "Best of 2012" list until I saw Zero Dark Thirty because, all politics aside, it is an excellent film. It's intense from beginning to end, and the final 30 minutes, in which the compound Osama bin Laden is living in is raided, made me feel like I was going to have a heart attack. In a good way.
The acting is superb and subtle. Jessica Chastain turns in a career-making performance as Maya, the CIA officer who single-mindedly dedicates a decade of her life to hunting down the top Al Qaeda terrorist, even after the CIA itself has all but stopped caring. Maya is portrayed as having no love life and few friends; her life is totally dedicated to her work. She's smart and forceful, but in a quiet, observant way that helps her get exactly what she wants and needs to take down this man. But the viewer is left wondering--was it worth it? Was this a worthy goal to pursue?
Many would argue that yes, on a symbolic level, the death of bin Laden was extremely important. I remember learning that bin Laden was dead through a second-hand text, and seeing Facebook blow up the next day. Seeing people celebrate the death of a man who certainly was behind the 9/11 attacks but was not singly responsible for them, was bizarre. I'm not a mind control conspiracy theorist, but no doubt we are trained by our media and politicians to latch on to certain people, events, and sound bites. Was bin Laden's death justified? I'd say yes it was. Was it a cathartic moment for Americans? Most certainly. Did it make things all better? No. Nothing will completely wipe away the anger and agony of 9/11.Another question: was a feature film about the hunt for and death of bin Laden in poor taste? I personally don't believe so. Yes, I think the filmmakers probably got some of their information, er, "extralegally", and yes, I think that's not exactly a great precedent. But I also think that people really want to know and experience, on some level, "what happened", and I don't think satisfying that curiosity is wrong or in poor taste.
Yet, we don't know exactly where Hollywood ends and real life begins. In fact, one of the biggest controversies of the film, which I'll address in minute, is that the film portrays the CIA gaining a critical piece of information about bin Laden through the torture of a specific terrorist. In real life, the CIA got this information through other means. So, was it irresponsible for Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal to present as a fact that critical information was gained through torture? Yes, I do think it is irresponsible and disingenuous.
But let's explore the whole torture thing. Zero Dark Thirty has been lambasted as pro-torture. Some have suggested that Bigelow is a Bush-Cheney apologist who saw torture as critical to the death of bin Laden. Bigelow has denied these charges, and I take her at her word. I also don't see the film as pro-torture (although I do think aspects of the film are problematic--see above), and here's why:
1. Zero Dark Thirty does not romanticize, glorify, or sexualize torture.
Obviously, this interpretation is personal, but when compared to the torture sequences on the TV show 24, or in movies like Taken and Hostel, Zero Dark Thirty feels very different. The torture that Liam Neeson administers in Taken, for example, seems righteous and badass: a man who will (and should!) do anything to find his daughter. The torture in Hostel and Hostel 2 has an element of sexuality and fetishism to it. It involves nudity and gut-churning creativity. And of course, the infamous Jack Bauer is a super-masculinized hero, torturing people to literally save the day.
Zero Dark Thirty strips away the righteousness, the sex, and the glory from torture and shows it for what it really is: a nasty, pathetic affair to be hidden away in a dirty little room at a CIA blacksite. The film portrays torture as grotesque, revolting, dehumanizing to all involved, and nothing to be proud of. It also portrays it as disturbingly real--the victim, Ammar, soils his pants, is forced to crawl on the floor, and weeps openly. Even in Taken, the torture victims are permitted to retain some dignity.
2. The viewer sympathizes with the torture victim.
Ammar, the man who eventually gives up a name that is a key piece of information in hunting down bin Laden, openly admits to being a terrorist and wanting to kill Americans. He's a bad guy. Yet only the most sadistic, disturbed viewer would not be able to sympathize with Ammar. Although he certainly isn't innocent, it's hard to stomach watching him be tortured and humiliated. We (or, at least, I) wanted him to confess--not to help the CIA agents, but so that his torture might end. In some movies and shows that portray torture, the victim is an over the top or generic bad guy who gets what he deserves. The audience of Zero Dark Thirty doesn't see Ammar at his baddest, we see him at his most vulnerable. Therefore, we see his humanity and feel disgust on his behalf.
3. The film shows that torture is dehumanizing to torturer as well as the victim.
Obviously, Ammar is dehumanized by his torture. But Zero Dark Thirty suggests that the act of torturing takes a heavy toll on the torturer as well. Jason Clarke plays Dan, another CIA official who does most of the torturing. Dan is a well-rounded character and certainly not a sadist who enjoys his dirty work (again, this was my personal interpretation--others may see it differently). At one point he tells Ammar that he respects Ammar's ability to remain silent, even though he, Dan, is going to break him anyway. Later, he talks to Maya about wanting to leave the CIA. To me, Dan was a character that reluctantly did his job and removed himself emotionally from his work, despite the fact that it clearly had an impact on his psyche. While the whole "I was just following orders" excuse is pretty pathetic, I liked that Bigelow didn't portray Dan as a 2-dimensional racist meathead who loved his job. I like that she gave him some depth and showed a bit (but not too much) of the regret below his emotionally distant surface.
4. Portraying torture doesn't promote torture.
At the end of the day, I think it's good for American audiences to see a realistic depiction of torture because it forces us to confront this difficult issue head on without any of that Hollywod sheen to make it prettier than it really is. One view of Zero Dark Thirty is that because important information is gained by torture, the movie and all involved are pro-torture. Another view (and this is my view) is this: even if important information WAS gained through torture, does that justify it? I feel that Zero Dark Thirty asks this question and then doesn't fully answer it. On one hand, yes, torture is justified because it leads to the death of a terrorist who was behind the deaths of thousands of people. On the other hand, torture is not justified because when it's all said and done, and bin Laden is in a body bag, it doesn't change much of anything. Maya's tears at the end of the film can be interpreted in two ways: she is feeling incredible catharsis after the successful completion tof a decade-long quest. But she is also wondering, "what now?" Has her life changed or improved? Have others' lives changed all that much? Sure, no one outside of bin Laden's circle of friends, family, and followers mourn him...but his death doesn't bring back the victims of 9/11. Maybe it makes the victims' families rest a little easier knowing justice is kind of served...but it doesn't remove their pain entirely.
Zero Dark Thirty as a film is undeniably tense, well-written, and well-acted. In my opinion, it is one of the best of 2012 and deserving of the accolades it receives. As a political statement, the film is troubling, but not, in my mind, "morally wrong". I try not to attach moral judgments to films and those who watch them. And the films I do judge tend to be bullshit like the Tucker Max movie. There is a lot of wiggle room in art for meaningful portrayals of sex, violence, and moral ambiguity. If not in art, where? Maybe we need to experience violence and morally questionable behavior in the safety of a movie theatre (or library, or art museum) so that we don't feel the need to be violent or immoral in real life. Maybe a film like Zero Dark Thirty satisfies a curiosity to see what real torture looks like, while also making us confront the question: do we want to allow this?
Do we want to live in a society that does this? Is that what we want?
5 out of 5 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment