Zero Dark Thirty

[MarkGrace]

Spoiler for Spoiler:

I guess the main difference for me is that nobody we (the viewing audience) cared about died in the Marriott bomb, which instantly differentiates it from the Camp Randall bomb, even if they had both been unforeseen. Also, the Camp Randall bombing had the chance to lull you into a false sense of security (legitimately, as it turns out) and then blindside you, whereas the Marriott bomb was completely random. In other words, there are enough distinguishing factors that I don't think the Hurt Locker comparison is valid. And since this is a movie where 100% of the viewing audience knows how it ends, I felt like it needed to take advantage of its few opportunities to take you by surprise.

I totally agree with you that someone who is more familiar with the developments is going to know all this stuff anyway. But I put that at less than 10% of the viewing public (which, as you say, is pretty embarrassing).

Spoiler for Maybe:

But I would say the opposite is true: that the Marriott was a much better opportunity to lull you into a false sense of security. It was just some people out to dinner eating, drinking and talking -- if ever there was a chance for you to let your guard down, it was right there when they've taken you out of the military side of things and put you in civilian life. Like you said, that thing was totally random, and they played up its randomness for effect. I had completely forgotten about that bombing and when it happened just had that "holy shit!" reaction. On the flip side, I was always going to be suspicious of a supposed informant rolling up to a military base. Too many valuable targets, too many opportunities to take a shot at the U.S.

[MarkGrace]

[spoiler]I very much agree. I think it would have added to the suspense to develop the internal al-queda source a little bit. Put a face on him. Make it known that he was a trusted CIA informant. And then allow him to go forward with the plot and bombing. In my view, that's closer to the realities and perils of intelligence gathering. I think the film makers could still have captured much of the same inpending doom with that approach.[/spoiler]

[I very much agree. I think it would have added to the suspense to develop the internal al-queda source a little bit. Put a face on him. Make it known that he was a trusted CIA informant. And then allow him to go forward with the plot and bombing. In my view, that's closer to the realities and perils of intelligence gathering. I think the film makers could still have captured much of the same inpending doom with that approach.[/SPOILER]

Spoiler for Spoiler tag fail!:

I have to think you'd still be suspicious of the informant and see it coming. There's just no way to fully trust what the guy would be up to. Maybe they could have played it closer to the facts and ended up with the same impact (ie., they want you to see it coming), but I don't think they were ever going to be able to make that moment a complete surprise.

[Donuthole]

Spoiler for Spoiler tag fail!:

I have to think you'd still be suspicious of the informant and see it coming. There's just no way to fully trust what the guy would be up to. Maybe they could have played it closer to the facts and ended up with the same impact (ie., they want you to see it coming), but I don't think they were ever going to be able to make that moment a complete surprise.

Spoiler for I disagree.:

I think they were going to be able to make it a complete surprise. I say this, because I wasn't expecting it at all until they started talking about security. They could have either laid the proper foundation or they could have explained it after the fact.

[Paperback Writer]

Spoiler for Spoiler tag fail!:

I have to think you'd still be suspicious of the informant and see it coming. There's just no way to fully trust what the guy would be up to. Maybe they could have played it closer to the facts and ended up with the same impact (ie., they want you to see it coming), but I don't think they were ever going to be able to make that moment a complete surprise.

Sorry about the spoiler tag fail. I've corrected it so perhaps you could delete my quote or tag it correctly.

Anyway..

Spoiler for I think I've figured out spoil tag now:

I agree with you in that I'm not opting for a complete surprise. I like how Bigelow ushers the viewer down the path to doom. Just don't give it up by allowing the guy past the checkpoint w/o inspection because a CIA head officer asks for it. Perhaps have her explain why this guy doesn't need to be inspected because he's trusted and been here before. And previously, give some back story on this guy...show his face...and some background on why he's shouldn't be trusted. In the end, I think the same effect is reached. In short, I think Begelow took a shortcut. Maybe it was necessary. But I can imagine feeling more intense about the scene knowing that the CIA trusts this guy when they shouldn't and now something real bad is about to happen. The car explosion could still be somewhat of a surprise. Pleading with security to let the guy through w/o inspection is a dead giveaway.

[MarkGrace]

Spoiler for I disagree.:

I think they were going to be able to make it a complete surprise. I say this, because I wasn't expecting it at all until they started talking about security. They could have either laid the proper foundation or they could have explained it after the fact.

Spoiler for Spoiler again:

And see, I was worried about it the second that guy was coming to the base. As soon as they made the decision, I remember thinking "well, this isn't going to end well." IDK, that scene just worked for me in an interesting way because they told me it was coming. It was one of the most dreadful and uneasy moments of the whole thing to watch.

[MarkGrace]

Sorry about the spoiler tag fail. I've corrected it so perhaps you could delete my quote or tag it correctly.

Anyway..

Spoiler for I think I've figured out spoil tag now:

I agree with you in that I'm not opting for a complete surprise. I like how Bigelow ushers the viewer down the path to doom. Just don't give it up by allowing the guy past the checkpoint w/o inspection because a CIA head officer asks for it. Perhaps have her explain why this guy doesn't need to be inspected because he's trusted and been here before. And previously, give some back story on this guy...show his face...and some background on why he's shouldn't be trusted. In the end, I think the same effect is reached. In short, I think Begelow took a shortcut. Maybe it was necessary. But I can imagine feeling more intense about the scene knowing that the CIA trusts this guy when they shouldn't and now something real bad is about to happen. The car explosion could still be somewhat of a surprise. Pleading with security to let the guy through w/o inspection is a dead giveaway.

Spoiler for Fair enough:

Yeah, that's fair, I think that could work. But like you said, that requires quite a few additional scenes to set up. Donut already thinks the movie needs to be 17 minutes shorter, not longer!

[Katy Lied]

There were about 10 people in my theater, and 2 of them were seriously sobbing during the final 20 minutes. I couldn't tell if the cryers were men or women. I can imagine all sorts of emotions by why would someone cry?

I really liked it, what a vicarious thrill.

What's with Dan and the monkeys? That went no where. And why were the monkeys killed? And what were the monkeys doing there anyway?

I wonder if Dan and others like him were seriously messed up in the head. 100+ EITs.

[Green Lantern]

Just saw this over the weekend. I'll link to my more extended comments about it later but in brief, I thought it was tremendously well done and it fully lived up to my expectations. I very much admired the ambivalence of the whole enterprise. Things like torture and military tactics were presented without judgment and it is up to the viewer to decide how they feel about them.

I can easily see people coming out of the film saying "Wow, that torture was rough but they did what they had to do" while others would see the same scene and have a reaction on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. My favorite kind of movie. Arguments galore!

Spoiler for Camp Chapman:

As for the Camp Chapman scene, I can see both sides of the argument presented above but, in the end, I agree with MG that it made more narrative sense to present it as they did. Not only did it differentiate the attack from the earlier one at the Marriott, it also served to emphasize that our protagonist Maya's lead was the only one left to pursue. Had the film spent more time introducing the informant and getting us to trust him just so they could pull the rug out from under us with the bombing, it would have served as a lengthy and narratively unsatisfying digression from Maya's story.

For those interested, I liked this article at Slate yesterday that attempts to line up some of the major players in the movie with their real-life counterparts. Beware, spoilers abound.

[Donuthole]

Just saw this over the weekend. I'll link to my more extended comments about it later but in brief, I thought it was tremendously well done and it fully lived up to my expectations. I very much admired the ambivalence of the whole enterprise. Things like torture and military tactics were presented without judgment and it is up to the viewer to decide how they feel about them.

I can easily see people coming out of the film saying "Wow, that torture was rough but they did what they had to do" while others would see the same scene and have a reaction on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. My favorite kind of movie. Arguments galore!

Spoiler for Camp Chapman:

As for the Camp Chapman scene, I can see both sides of the argument presented above but, in the end, I agree with MG that it made more narrative sense to present it as they did. Not only did it differentiate the attack from the earlier one at the Marriott, it also served to emphasize that our protagonist Maya's lead was the only one left to pursue. Had the film spent more time introducing the informant and getting us to trust him just so they could pull the rug out from under us with the bombing, it would have served as a lengthy and narratively unsatisfying digression from Maya's story.

For those interested, I liked this article at Slate yesterday that attempts to line up some of the major players in the movie with their real-life counterparts. Beware, spoilers abound.

Spoiler for Camp Chatman, Redux:

It didn't need to be lengthy. Spend a 1-minute scene letting Jessica tell Maya about a prior meeting she had with the guy (which apparently happened in real life). Spend another minute setting up why the information he was going to give them this time was even better.

As for your point about Maya's lead, it seems moot. Either way, Jessica's lead blows up and we are left with the understanding that Maya's lead is the only one left. I'm not sure how this changes if there is a little foundation laid for Jessica's lead.

[MarkGrace]

There were about 10 people in my theater, and 2 of them were seriously sobbing during the final 20 minutes. I couldn't tell if the cryers were men or women. I can imagine all sorts of emotions by why would someone cry?

You can check my earlier post if you're curious.

[MarkGrace]

Spoiler for Camp Chatman, Redux:

It didn't need to be lengthy. Spend a 1-minute scene letting Jessica tell Maya about a prior meeting she had with the guy (which apparently happened in real life). Spend another minute setting up why the information he was going to give them this time was even better.

As for your point about Maya's lead, it seems moot. Either way, Jessica's lead blows up and we are left with the understanding that Maya's lead is the only one left. I'm not sure how this changes if there is a little foundation laid for Jessica's lead.

That now makes the movie 19 minutes longer than you wanted it to be!

[MarkGrace]

There were about 10 people in my theater, and 2 of them were seriously sobbing during the final 20 minutes. I couldn't tell if the cryers were men or women. I can imagine all sorts of emotions by why would someone cry?

I really liked it, what a vicarious thrill.

What's with Dan and the monkeys? That went no where. And why were the monkeys killed? And what were the monkeys doing there anyway?

I wonder if Dan and others like him were seriously messed up in the head. 100+ EITs.

I think it was just some sort of relief for him. Something of a diversion or an escape to distract him from what he was engaged in. Clearly that has to take a serious toll on somebody, and we see that goes back to Washington because he ultimately doesn't want to be engaged in what he was doing any longer.

[Green Lantern]

I think it was just some sort of relief for him. Something of a diversion or an escape to distract him from what he was engaged in. Clearly that has to take a serious toll on somebody, and we see that goes back to Washington because he ultimately doesn't want to be engaged in what he was doing any longer.

I thought it was a nice parallel to what he said earlier to one of the detainees about how everyone eventually breaks, "It's biology, Bro." In the end, it looks like the same goes for the torturers as well.

[Katy Lied]

The dog.

A satellite image of the compound was displayed on a wall, along with a map showing the flight routes into and out of Pakistan. The briefing lasted about thirty-five minutes. Obama wanted to know how Ahmed had kept locals at bay; he also inquired about the fallen Black Hawk and whether above-average temperatures in Abbottabad had contributed to the crash. (The Pentagon is conducting a formal investigation of the accident.) When James, the squadron commander, spoke, he started by citing all the forward operating bases in eastern Afghanistan that had been named for SEALs killed in combat. “Everything we have done for the last ten years prepared us for this,” he told Obama. The President was “in awe of these guys,” Ben Rhodes, the deputy national-security adviser, who travelled with Obama, said. “It was an extraordinary base visit,” he added. “They knew he had staked his Presidency on this. He knew they staked their lives on it.”
As James talked about the raid, he mentioned Cairo’s role. “There was a dog?” Obama interrupted. James nodded and said that Cairo was in an adjoining room, muzzled, at the request of the Secret Service.
“I want to meet that dog,” Obama said.
“If you want to meet the dog, Mr. President, I advise you to bring treats,” James joked. Obama went over to pet Cairo, but the dog’s muzzle was left on.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...#ixzz2I4NUefDq

[Paperback Writer]

I think it was just some sort of relief for him. Something of a diversion or an escape to distract him from what he was engaged in. Clearly that has to take a serious toll on somebody, and we see that goes back to Washington because he ultimately doesn't want to be engaged in what he was doing any longer.

I think there was some symbolism involved there as well but I tend to see symbolism sometimes when it is not meant. The monkeys are caged just like the al-queda prisoners. Monkeys are animals and the prisoners are treated as such. Using coercive interrogation tactics makes both the interrogator and interogatee less human. In my view, the monkey stealing Dan's ice cream cone was symbolic of the interrogations stealing Dan's humanity. The monkeys being removed from the base also symbolized Dan's leaving the base and removal from that aspect of intelligence gathering and moving on. Dan's character put it best: "I think I've seen too many naked guys..." Or as GL stated, the interrogator eventually breaks just as the the interrogatee ....if he is to keep some aspect of his humanity.