Zero Dark Thirty

[OrangeUte]

MG and PAC, thanks for the write ups. Sounds like a very intense and well-made movie.

[Surfah]

I am encouraged. Homeland without the ridiculousness. Sounds good to me. I was hoping it wouldn't fall short where Hurt Locker did. Can't wait to see for myself.

[il Padrino Ute]

It's kind of interesting to think what this movie would have been like had they not found Osama in the end. I'm curious to know where they were headed and what the resolve of the movie would have been.

There's no reason to wonder about that because had Bin Laden not been killed, this movie would never have been made.

[RC Vikings]

There's no reason to wonder about that because had Bin Laden not been killed, this movie would never have been made.

We have Obama to thank for that.

[Devildog]

We have Obama to thank for that.

He sure took the credit.

[MarkGrace]

There's no reason to wonder about that because had Bin Laden not been killed, this movie would never have been made.

It was already being made. Screenplay was done (it was about a failed mission to get Bin Laden), they were just about to start filming, and then Bin Laden was killed. They scrapped a lot of what they had and redid it. That's a lot of the reason why they were able to get this out so soon after his death.

[il Padrino Ute]

It was already being made. Screenplay was done (it was about a failed mission to get Bin Laden), they were just about to start filming, and then Bin Laden was killed. They scrapped a lot of what they had and redid it. That's a lot of the reason why they were able to get this out so soon after his death.

I didn't know that. Interesting. Was it originally written when Obama or Bush was in the White House?

[MarkGrace]

I didn't know that. Interesting. Was it originally written when Obama or Bush was in the White House?

I would have to guess Obama. I'm sure they didn't start work on this until after The Hurt Locker, and that was 2008.

Though I'm not sure why that matters. The movie is entirely unconcerned with who is in the White House. It's Mya's (the CIA agent) story. I'm sure you won't see it since it's not the sequel to Snow White, but maybe this will make you feel better:

I’M betting that Dick Cheney will love the new movie “Zero Dark Thirty.”

Who could have predicted that? Hollywood, after all, is supposed to be a West Coast annex of the Democratic National Committee, and the makers of this gripping thriller, about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, were expected to repay the Obama administration for its indulgence of them with a tribute to the current president’s wisdom and grit.

But the movie of the year is also the political conundrum of the year, a far, far cry from the rousing piece of pro-Obama propaganda that some conservatives feared it would be.

Even as David Edelstein, the film critic for New York magazine, named “Zero Dark Thirty” the best movie of 2012 in a recent article, he digressed to say that it “borders on the politically and morally reprehensible,” because it “makes a case for the efficacy of torture.”

Edelstein isn’t the only critic in a morally complicated swoon over “Zero Dark Thirty.” Last week the New York Film Critics Circle awarded it the best movie of the year. So did the National Board of Review. Surprises atop surprises: not only does “Zero Dark Thirty” decline to toe a conventionally liberal line, but it is being embraced by many cultural arbiters who are probably at some level horrified by the conclusions it seems to reach.

“Zero Dark Thirty” takes its title from a military term for half past midnight, which is when Navy SEALs raided Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. It’s the work of the director Kathryn Bigelow and the screenwriter Mark Boal, who previously collaborated on “The Hurt Locker.” As they researched their new movie, they got considerable cooperation from the C.I.A. and the Defense Department, provoking complaints from some conservatives, who smelled an Obama hagiography in the making.

They smelled wrong. Obama isn’t a character in the movie but, rather, a part of the backdrop to a narrative about the bloody drama and bloodless tedium of intelligence gathering over the course of nearly 10 years between 9/11 and the killing of Bin Laden. It’s about finding a needle in a uniquely messy and menacing haystack. “Enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding are presented as crucial to that search, and it’s hard not to focus on them, because the first extended sequence in the movie shows a detainee being strung up by his wrists, sexually humiliated, deprived of sleep, made to feel as if he’s drowning and shoved into a box smaller than a coffin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/op...wood.html?_r=0

I know a lot of political figures (the director of the CIA, several congressmen, etc.) have objected to the degree torture is shown to have been a key to getting Bin Laden, but I think the movie overall does a pretty good job of showing that it was a lot of different tactics and techniques that ultimately led to him. Of course the torture does factor prominently as it gets them key information that sets them down the path.

[MarkGrace]

I am encouraged. Homeland without the ridiculousness. Sounds good to me. I was hoping it wouldn't fall short where Hurt Locker did. Can't wait to see for myself.

Maybe it will for some, who knows. For example, the bombing of the Afghani base that killed several CIA operatives is presented in a way that even watching it and not knowing the facts didn't smell right. It was one of those moments where you think "that would never happen." I read about the incident last night, and it's definitely not as presented in the movie. There are factual consistencies, but they certainly play with what actually happened for dramatic effect in the movie. And I'm sure this happens with several -- if not most -- of the things that are presented in the movie. But I'll always understand decisions like that, as ultimately they're just making a movie and not anything else. For me to focus on stuff like that is to miss the point, as this movie, like The Hurt Locker, is ultimately about trying to capture a character (Mya -- the CIA operative) and certain liberties are taken to get there.

[DrumNFeather]

I've got a buddy that works at the CIA, and he keeps telling me it is a work of fiction, though I assure him it is likely 100% factually correct. It's interesting to live in an area full of "analysts" a few of whom are involved in counter terrorism, especially when movies like this come out. I'm pumped to see it for sure.

[MarkGrace]

I've got a buddy that works at the CIA, and he keeps telling me it is a work of fiction, though I assure him it is likely 100% factually correct.

Of course it is. You know that when you walk into a theater.

It's interesting to live in an area full of "analysts" a few of whom are involved in counter terrorism, especially when movies like this come out. I'm pumped to see it for sure.

Really? Seems more like it would be annoying. Like being around military types when The Hurt Locker came out.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Really? Seems more like it would be annoying. Like being around military types when The Hurt Locker came out.

You don't need to a military type to know that movie was hogwash.

[MarkGrace]

You don't need to a military type to know that movie was hogwash.

Eh. A lot of military types loved it as well and you don't need to me a military type to recognize that it was great. That wasn't what I was getting at.

[DrumNFeather]

Of course it is. You know that when you walk into a theater.



Really? Seems more like it would be annoying. Like being around military types when The Hurt Locker came out.

It's mostly fun to just needle those guys. Since most of them can't talk about what they do anyway, they can't give a "true" opinion on these movies, other than to remind me that it's just a movie...but that does't stop me from giving them a hard time.

Agree on the Hurt Locker though, several guys I know were quite annoying on social media over that film.

[MarkGrace]

It's mostly fun to just needle those guys. Since most of them can't talk about what they do anyway, they can't give a "true" opinion on these movies, other than to remind me that it's just a movie...but that does't stop me from giving them a hard time.

One thing I was thinking about last night was that it's almost impossible to know what is actually true. I know Bigelow and the sceenwriter had a lot of access to the CIA and DoD, but with the way all that stuff works, you have information that is unknown, you have varying accounts, you have different perspectives, you have career considerations, political implications, etc. I have no idea how you'd sift through all that to determine exactly what happened.

The other thing is that it's such a big story with so many different parts that I'm not sure how you ever get started on pulling the thing together. I'm sure it must have been a daunting task. It's trying to connect all the major events from the last ten years (9/11, London, Afghani base bomb, Marriott bombing, etc), and it puts Mya in and among some circumstances that I have to assume just didn't happen. But without centralizing the story around one character, I have no idea how you'd tell that story in a way that makes sense and doesn't become entirely disjointed.