Why is Zero Dark Thirty Wrong?

Zero Dark ThirtyThere is a bit of disagreement about Zero Dark Thirty among those who are completely in agreement about the politics. Let’s start with the agreement. First, torture is wrong. I am so angry I even have to write that, because when I was a kid, that was a given. Anyway. Second, torture is not effective. Third, torture did not lead to finding Osama bin Laden.

This is a big deal, because sadly, there are many people in this country who don’t agree with any of those statements. We know that Dick Cheney doesn’t. He might say that torture is unfortunate, but given that the “evil doers” use it, we must. So we are talking about people who are firmly on the liberal side of this issue—also known as the right side.

Jane Mayer at The New Yorker really takes the film to task. She calls Kathryn Bigelow a torture apologist. Bigelow defends herself on this score, claiming that she’s just showing the way things were. But Mayer goes to some length to show this isn’t true. The torture in the first half hour of the film is not there to say, “Hey! Look what we did!” Instead, it is there to say, “Hey! Look how we found bin Laden!”

Andrew Sullivan, in contrast, writes an article titled, Kathryn Bigelow: Not A Torture Apologist. Strangely, however, in defending Bigelow, he is making an even more fierce attack on the United States government:

In that way, it exposes the Biggest Lie of the Bush-Cheney administration: that Abu Ghraib was an exception, and not the rule. What was done to suspects in Abu Ghraib was actually less grotesque, less horrifying, and less shocking than what Bush and Cheney ordered the CIA to do to human beings directly.

He later writes, “The torture was not for intelligence… It was for revenge.” But after reading the whole review (that is well worth reading), I was left asking, “How is Bigelow not an apologist?”

Apparently, a lot of people wondered the same thing. Today, he wrote another article in which he specifically counters Jane Mayer’s argument. And frankly, I think he digs himself even further in. Basically, he’s saying that of course these CIA people would self-justify. They would have to in order to live with themselves. But this shows that Sullivan has an extremely primitive notion of storytelling. There is no such thing as objective fiction. You can present people doing vile things without showing agreement. And Sullivan must know this, because he notes that Bigelow presents these horror without judging them positive or negative. But that itself is a judgement.

Sullivan goes on to argue that Bigelow is a moral coward. But somehow, she is not an apologist. Still, he writes this, “One has to wonder whether any morally serious director would have chosen a morally-neutral approach to torture if she were portraying torture practiced by, say, the Iranian terror state, or by Nazis or Communists?”

I think this is yet another case of Andrew Sullivan being uncomfortable with who he is. He claims to be a conservative, yet the issues that drive him are all liberal. So I think this is a case: he doesn’t want to be part of the liberal bandwagon who are attacking Zero Dark Thirty. But he actually thinks it is even worse than all the liberals are claiming.

As for me: I would like to see the film so I could say for myself. But I know that at best it would just be another Hollywood action/suspense film with little to recommend it. You know: an Oscar contender.

This entry was posted in Politics by Frank Moraes. Bookmark the permalink.
Avatar

About Frank Moraes

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor online and in print. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, throughout the computer industry, and as a college physics instructor. Find out more at About Frank Moraes.

0 thoughts on “Why is Zero Dark Thirty Wrong?

  1. Katheryn Bigelow is, I’m sorry to be so mean, a fool. Look at her filmography. "Near Dark" — oh, no. "Point Break" — the surfers/bank-robbers/Buddhist Keanu Reeves/Swayze movie, whose only redeeming virtue was my awesome 8th-grade Social studies teacher, Gordon Vallaincourt, smoking a pipe on the Oregon coast in in scene at the end which was supposed to be Hawaii. (Gordon, in his ’70’s when he taught me, is immortal because of that, which is cool.)

    It’s no accident she was married to Cameron; they’re both gifted morons. Cameron gets big budgets for his idiocy; Bigelow, now, gets critical acclaim. Nothing about what either does has Brain Cell One. I’ve happily avoided "Titanic" and "Avatar"; I made the mistake of renting "The Hurt Locker." It’s just the same faux-serious topical crap every other moviemaker indulges in if they can’t get funding to make 250-million blockbusters. As far as PSTD goes, I’d much sooner recommend "The Messenger," if not 10 other movies made on the subject about earlier wars.

    "The Hurt Locker" was acclaimed for the same reason "Crash" won an Oscar (over "Brokeback," a flawed movie with genuinely powerful emotions in it); Hollywood loves to pat itself on the back.

    Fear not, sir; nobody sees movies about current wars. We loved WWII in "Ryan," and we loved Korea in the offensively inoffensive TV "MASH." Yet Americans don’t like facing up to what our foreign policy really entails, either for our onetime conscripts/now desperate joiners or what we actually do to foreigners. (When disasters strike Third World countries, we’re great at coughing up relief funds, perhaps from sublimated guilt.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *