Hurt Locker, straight up racist movie
- Thread starter 3 Body No Problem
- Start date
Bangpuss
Well-known member
I find it infuriating when political journalists attack a film for not portraying the world as they see it. True, blatant propaganda like Top Gun and Pearl Harbour needs to be flagged up as such, as do historical inaccuracies, and even the wider role a film like Zero Dark Thirty plays in the public discourse surrounding the events.
But when a humourless dogmatist like John Pilger compares Zero Dark Thirty to Nazi propaganda, he comes across as no better than the killjoy right-wing zealots who criticise sexually explicit films. Here's what he said -- he called Katheryn Bigelow, "the Leni Riefenstahl of our time, promoting her master's voice as did the Fuhrer's pet film-maker."
Now I think Zero Dark Thirty -- while gripping drama -- is a hugely problematic film politically. But comparing the director to a Nazi propagandist? Come on, John, you're giving people on your side of the argument a bad name. Unless political commentators have something insightful to say about films -- as Taibbi did for Rolling Stone -- they should shut up and leave the job to film critics, and hope the political significance isn't lost on the professional reviewers.
But when a humourless dogmatist like John Pilger compares Zero Dark Thirty to Nazi propaganda, he comes across as no better than the killjoy right-wing zealots who criticise sexually explicit films. Here's what he said -- he called Katheryn Bigelow, "the Leni Riefenstahl of our time, promoting her master's voice as did the Fuhrer's pet film-maker."
Now I think Zero Dark Thirty -- while gripping drama -- is a hugely problematic film politically. But comparing the director to a Nazi propagandist? Come on, John, you're giving people on your side of the argument a bad name. Unless political commentators have something insightful to say about films -- as Taibbi did for Rolling Stone -- they should shut up and leave the job to film critics, and hope the political significance isn't lost on the professional reviewers.
Bangpuss
Well-known member
Let me just ask, though: besides whether the film 'glorifies' torture or not on an aesthetic level (I'd say it probably does), I can't remember if the crucial evidence Maya uses to track down Bin Laden in the film actually leads them to him. Because if it does, that's a straight-up endorsement of torture right there. But I honestly can't remember if the torture evidence they obtained was useful as the film portrayed it. Someone help me out with this one please, because I think it's key to an analysis of whether the film condones torture or not.
Either way, I'd say the fact that I'm having to ask this question means it wasn't very explicit, which is the central flaw of the film for me. If the torture information wasn't at all useful, and Bigelow wanted to make this point (as some have claimed she did, subtly), she could have done so more clearly, rather than hiding it in one or two lines of dialogue. Because don't you think, with such a dark and dangerous act like torture which has been at the centre of international debate for a decade now, and which is a central tenet of the story of the war on terror (and the hunt for Bin Laden), if it really wasn't useful to the central characters in the film's quest (and America's quest), that ought to be made crystal clear?
Some critics are saying it's a subtle repudiation of torture because the beatings, etc. didn't actually yield useful information. This is something I can't have been watching closely enough to notice. And I'm not the only one, because there are other people coming at it from the same point of view as me: I certainly don't remember this being the case. So if it's in there, it's a small (but crucial) point that gets lost amid a 140 minute film in which we're essentially rooting for the torturers.
Either way, I'd say the fact that I'm having to ask this question means it wasn't very explicit, which is the central flaw of the film for me. If the torture information wasn't at all useful, and Bigelow wanted to make this point (as some have claimed she did, subtly), she could have done so more clearly, rather than hiding it in one or two lines of dialogue. Because don't you think, with such a dark and dangerous act like torture which has been at the centre of international debate for a decade now, and which is a central tenet of the story of the war on terror (and the hunt for Bin Laden), if it really wasn't useful to the central characters in the film's quest (and America's quest), that ought to be made crystal clear?
Some critics are saying it's a subtle repudiation of torture because the beatings, etc. didn't actually yield useful information. This is something I can't have been watching closely enough to notice. And I'm not the only one, because there are other people coming at it from the same point of view as me: I certainly don't remember this being the case. So if it's in there, it's a small (but crucial) point that gets lost amid a 140 minute film in which we're essentially rooting for the torturers.
Last edited:
craner
Beast of Burden
Maybe you were, I dunno, a bit distracted. I thought it was fairly clear. Torture leads to some useful information (the existance of the courier, Abu Ahmed) but it also leads to a dead end, because torture of further suspects (for example, Abu Faraj in Pakistan) leads to no new leads and the trail goes dead. The actual identity of Abu Ahmed is then deduced through some internal intelligence sharing and analysis, conducted against the backdrop of Obama's Drone War which (unlike the torture) is shredding and murdering a lot of people (a point not emphasised by the film, it should be noted).
So, this is where we stand in Zero Dark Thirty: torture can yield a certain level and quality of intelligence, but it is a brutal and ultimately self-defeating method with natural limits and diminishing returns. Analysis, intelligence-gathering and -sharing can lead to better results but are only as good as the sources and the raw data. It does not glorify torture on an aesthetic level. It does not root for torturers.
So, this is where we stand in Zero Dark Thirty: torture can yield a certain level and quality of intelligence, but it is a brutal and ultimately self-defeating method with natural limits and diminishing returns. Analysis, intelligence-gathering and -sharing can lead to better results but are only as good as the sources and the raw data. It does not glorify torture on an aesthetic level. It does not root for torturers.
Bangpuss
Well-known member
Thanks for the clarification, craner. That sounds about right.
I would still say that we're definitely supposed to be rooting for the torturers. Not necessarily when they're doing the torturing, but later in the film, the audience is supposed to be rooting for those very same people -- torturers -- to get their man. Of course, there will always be contrary bastards who are on the baddies' side in a movie -- usually the same people who tortured butterflies as children, it must be said. But to argue that Maya is not the protagonist in Zero Dark Thirty is to ignore the entire structure of movies and how they work, in which there is nearly always a protagonist to cheer for. Whether it's Bruce Willis in Die Hard or Maya the CIA agent, we're supposed to be on their side. And in ZDT, seeing as they're torturers, we're rooting for torturers.
As you explained in the plot recollections, I think the film is slightly more nuanced than the likes of John Pilger give it credit for. I think it does 'raise questions' about the moral line that's been crossed, albeit in whispers. But this is totally overpowered by the overarching narrative, which is wholly supportive of the CIA sadists. Maya is portrayed as a hero, isn't she? Flawed, but a hero nonetheless.
Now I come to think of it, Zero Dark Thirty may actually be evil, although for a reason I haven't heard voiced before. And it's this: if torture was shown to be useful -- a 'necessary evil' -- then you can argue it's the lesser evil and that's permissible. In fact, pretty much all pro-torture arguments are predicated on the stump that 'it works' in preventing greater atrocities -- the 'ticking bomb' scenario, etc. But I've never heard anyone say we should torture people even if it doesn't work.
So if torture doesn't work, as the factual accounts say it didn't*, and doesn't, and actually creates more enemies likely to bomb your cities, then to cheer for the torturers knowing that it doesn't work is just outright depraved. The movie doesn't go anywhere near an actual debate or exploration of how effective it was. There's never a moment when somebody explicitly questions what the hell they're doing, which no doubt must have happened, but Bigelow chose to leave out.
What Zero Dark Thirty does is turn us all into the sadists who rip the wings from butterflies, as we're strung along into supporting the people who do it.
*The info gleaned from torture was given up to the FBI by the same detainee before the CIA laid a finger on him.
I would still say that we're definitely supposed to be rooting for the torturers. Not necessarily when they're doing the torturing, but later in the film, the audience is supposed to be rooting for those very same people -- torturers -- to get their man. Of course, there will always be contrary bastards who are on the baddies' side in a movie -- usually the same people who tortured butterflies as children, it must be said. But to argue that Maya is not the protagonist in Zero Dark Thirty is to ignore the entire structure of movies and how they work, in which there is nearly always a protagonist to cheer for. Whether it's Bruce Willis in Die Hard or Maya the CIA agent, we're supposed to be on their side. And in ZDT, seeing as they're torturers, we're rooting for torturers.
As you explained in the plot recollections, I think the film is slightly more nuanced than the likes of John Pilger give it credit for. I think it does 'raise questions' about the moral line that's been crossed, albeit in whispers. But this is totally overpowered by the overarching narrative, which is wholly supportive of the CIA sadists. Maya is portrayed as a hero, isn't she? Flawed, but a hero nonetheless.
Now I come to think of it, Zero Dark Thirty may actually be evil, although for a reason I haven't heard voiced before. And it's this: if torture was shown to be useful -- a 'necessary evil' -- then you can argue it's the lesser evil and that's permissible. In fact, pretty much all pro-torture arguments are predicated on the stump that 'it works' in preventing greater atrocities -- the 'ticking bomb' scenario, etc. But I've never heard anyone say we should torture people even if it doesn't work.
So if torture doesn't work, as the factual accounts say it didn't*, and doesn't, and actually creates more enemies likely to bomb your cities, then to cheer for the torturers knowing that it doesn't work is just outright depraved. The movie doesn't go anywhere near an actual debate or exploration of how effective it was. There's never a moment when somebody explicitly questions what the hell they're doing, which no doubt must have happened, but Bigelow chose to leave out.
What Zero Dark Thirty does is turn us all into the sadists who rip the wings from butterflies, as we're strung along into supporting the people who do it.
*The info gleaned from torture was given up to the FBI by the same detainee before the CIA laid a finger on him.
Last edited:
As art/entertainment which supports, sustains, and furthers dominant ideology, of course a valid comparison can be drawn.