Just a Spoonful of Torture: Zero Dark Thirty

One astonished recent reviewer for Les Miserables took care to warn people that the movie’s lines are all sung. “If you don’t know that going in, you might be surprised.”

I had a similar feeling for the movie Zero Dark Thirty. If you thought, as I did from the trailers, that this is the true-life Delta Force we’ve all been waiting for, only this time without Chuck Norris, then prepare to be very surprised.

Naturally I didn’t really think the film would be all about Seal Team Six. The actual raid on the Bin Laden compound is shot in real time for added authenticity, so there you go. What one might not expect is that the film delivers the decade-long “Hunt for Bin Laden” economically packed into the first two hours (and change). I don’t offer this as a problem, only as an observation.

Even as it receives accolades and major award nominations, Zero Dark Thirty is embroiled in controversy. Questions regarding depictions of torture, the film’s intent (is it propaganda?) and the unusual level of access to CIA and government figures by the scriptwriter have produced a veritable seething publicity pot for the release. Not surprisingly, Al Jazeera’s reviewers give the film credit for its own level of “collateral damage.”

Boal & Bigelow

The filmmakers are arguing fiercely for the fact-based objectivity of the film, trying to spin it as a neutral depiction of a true story with no political or otherwise hidden agenda. The problem, of course, is that artistic neutrality is a specious argument at best and a bald-faced lie at worst. Even documentaries are rhetorical; the very choice of subject matter is meant to draw our attention and enhance our awareness. The effect is always a subtle—or not so subtle—influence on consciousness that inevitably shades opinion and may possibly shape actual choices. While there is no hypodermic needle—stick the movie into your bloodstream and behave like an automaton—there is always some sort of positive or negative effect and a structure of new information upon which other information acts and reacts. There also may not be overt intentionality on the part of the filmmaker, but the framing of the story with its coded sympathies tends to privilege the reception and provides, if nothing else, a latticework of values under the surface.

Be that as it may, no great detective work is required to grasp the loyalties of this film. It begins with a powerful moment that I won’t spoil for anyone here. But the elements are clearly intended to re-kindle the cold furnace in the hearts and minds of citizens for whom 9/11 may have receded into distant memory. This is an undisguised and intentional setup to which the succeeding story elements cling with narrative fidelity.

Many critics have made much of the "misleading" faux-journalistic patina on the film, but anyone actually offended by such “truth” claims in a movie can only be marked down as naive. Don’t we all know by now that directors mesmerize themselves with the “truth” of their own art and care very little about everyone else’s misguided fetish for accuracy and fact? “Based on actual events” means just as much as “based on an idea by Fulano DeTal.” In other words, “Something did happen somewhere, but by the time I, the filmmaker, am finished with it, it’s going be a lot more compelling and interesting. You should be thanking me instead of condemning me.”

Along those lines, director Kathryn Bigelow and scriptwriter Mark Boal tap into some of the same strong narrative stuff that made The Hurt Locker so effective. They serve up a menu of sharply flavored fare, giving us tension, conflict and visceral action in carefully measured increments. I’m fully convinced that Bigelow and Boal are genuinely shocked by assertions that they are elevating torture as a viable means of information gathering. I really doubt they thought beyond the necessity of telling what a gritty and gut wrenching story. Torture for them was a means to a narrative end.

Jason Clarke as "Dan"

And that irony points up one of the central enigmas of this film. Jason Clarke as “Dan” delivers the same lines we are used to hearing from maniacal, leather-strapped villains as he goes about “breaking” detainees. Only he’s one of the good guys and he makes his threats without grinning through metal teeth. Later we see him clean-cut with white shirt and tie, the paragon of civilization itself, and somehow the paradox is washed away by the objective of killing Bin Laden. As an audience, we’ve been pushed toward justice mode, we believe the detainee is implicated somehow (he wouldn’t be a detainee if he wasn’t implicated, right?) that he and all the other conspirators deserve this treatment or worse. We want to think that the torture is justified. The payoff, that Bin Laden is bagged in the end, is the justification we require. It’s simple narrative arithmetic and therefore effective.

What most of the critics may not realize, or simply refuse to realize, is that a great many Americans who watch this film are going to have absolutely no problem with that arithmetic. None whatsoever. And it’s just as possible that Bigelow and Boal were counting on that. But who knows? Ultimately what this movie says, whether the makers intended it or not, is that you better not mess with the USofA because we have the wherewithal to get our revenge and we will persevere to the last full measure of our vengeance no matter how long it takes or how much frag damage we receive and/or inflict to get it done. So don’t start it.

The question is whether or not that clear message reduces the film to the level of propaganda. Bigelow and Boal are horrified by the thought, according to their interviews and the growing statements in their own defense. In fact, they feel very put upon by the accusation. They point their fingers (futilely) at a spirit of censorship and bluster that their artistic integrity is being called into question. I’m actually hoping they don’t win any Oscars because I cringe at the thought of the martyrdom they may feel obligated to pedal after all this.

So while this review is more about the controversy than the film, I should mention that it’s a good movie. Mark Boal is a good storyteller and Kathryn Bigelow is an innovative director. The impressive lineup of Brits and Aussies playing Americans lends gravitas even to the bit parts. (I’m always amazed and inspired by the work ethic of Commonwealth B-stars who labor so hard at little roles). Jennifer Ehle, Mark Strong, Jason Clarke and Joel Edgerton sketch their roles with strong outlines that lend credible definition to their characters.

Jessica Chastain as "Maya"

Jessica Chastain as the centerpiece of the film, Agent Maya, definitely delivers as the kid who came out of high school to hunt down the biggest bad guy in recent history. Thankfully the film does not resort to some sort of maudlin flashback to clue us in to the inspiration for the character's intense motivation. This leaves her to be Everyman and Everywoman Who Cares. And that may be a genuine description of the actual person upon whom her character is based. As a person with whom the audience is meant to identify, the choice clearly works.

Both the storyline and the “on-the-ground” filming afford us an efficient linearity that takes us from the Twin Towers to the compound in Pakistan where the 18 minutes of real-time raid provide a satisfying climax. At times the un-filmic verisimilitude felt a little like 1977’s Raid on Entebbe, a TV movie depicting the true-life story of Israeli commandos rescuing an airplane load of hostages in Angola. Only this time there was a singularly lethal purpose to the action. The tight dimensions of the story limit our view to a series of terrorist actions and undercover counter-terrorist operations, almost as though we are witnessing a deadly chess match where crucially important pieces are traded for advantage. The wider wars in the region are almost completely blocked from view, conveniently helping us to avoid any additional annoying ethical dilemmas.

One critic referred to ZDT as “the best movie you won’t have any fun watching.” It’s true that one does not leave the theatre with any sense of “Huzzah, America!” At the same time, the “enemy” is sufficiently dehumanized in this film and even the Pakistanis are so completely marginalized (referred to almost dismissively as “Paks”) that any sense of internal debate is quickly quelled. In the end, we get UBL, and that’s what matters. In the end, it’s all about catharsis for an America that is no longer the victim but the great Righter of Wrongs.