jessica chastain should definitely be nominated. I still dont know if Anne Hathaway will be nominated for lead or supporting, but, i think Anne is going to win whatever she is nominated in, so if i was jessica i'd hope that its supporting actress.
It was wierd to see Coach Taylor swearing.
And how about Mark Duplass, for a guy that started out making indie films, low budget films, you couldnt find a more bizaare dichotomy of appearing in this film which is one of the biggest of the year, major director, major stars. he was the CIA guy, brielfly, who showed Jessica chastain the images about the multiple people in the house.
Jessica chastain was driven in this film, her character was, and she was as an actress. Intense role.
Im still upset about how the film really doesnt take a stand on issues of torture. Maybe Bigelow was just trying to present it, and let the audience decide, but Jessica Chastain is initially turned off by it, then grew to accept it.
In fact, you could make the case that the film suggests torture is useful. They were able to glean information from everyone they tortured in the film. And that what happened to Chastains friend, and the dangerous and violent nature of the work she was doing, made her accept torture as necessary.
i would agree with this. it was also insinuated towards the end that their jobs got a lot tougher when the new admin discouraged torturing.
good point. and thats part of the head scratcher. Whatever you feel about obama, the guy isnt an antitorture guy. Gitmo and the other torture centers are still up and running. Its clear, Obama just like bush did, believes that torture is justified and can yield results. In fact, right now, as of a day ago, Obama's new pick to head the CIA, was a guy who had previously been explicitly pro-torture tactics. Bush certainly shares blame for torture being used, but Obama had a chance to completely change things, he could have shut down gitmo, given all suspected terrorists access to lawyers, done away with the disturbing tactics the movie expertly shows. The fact is, he hasnt done any of that. The secret prisons still exist.
I think that was part of my beef with the movie, it seemed like the torture was shown during the bush years during the film, then it was suggested that Obama was somehow standing in the way of these tactics, when he is essentially for them.
Chomsky suggested something, and im apt to believe it, that Obama is more militaristic than Bush. And I think he has a point. Bush for all his major flaws and misdeeds, never went into another country and killed leaders. He killed civilians to be sure, But obama seems to view the solution as secretly going into another country, killing someone and then thats that. Thats a dangerous precedent to set.
I dont get Bigelow. She could have done so much more with this film.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
for the record, i think the movie was great...
i believe the obama admin banned the use of waterboarding when he came to office as well as some other interrogation tactics. i think this was what bigelow was getting at in the movie, especially considering the first 20 minutes of the movie.
i believe the obama admin banned the use of waterboarding when he came to office as well as some other interrogation tactics. i think this was what bigelow was getting at in the movie, especially considering the first 20 minutes of the movie.
to each their own i guess. Looking at the top movies of 2012 list, seems like i watch more movies than nearly anyone on the board, and i hardly ever go see the mainstream popcorn films. I love all films, and saw hundreds this year, but most were indie films.
He has the power to get rid of gitmo. What exactly do you think is happening there? Did Obama get rid of the inhumane no access to lawyer "rule". The fact is, any torture, including all those tactics shown in the film are not only inhumane, but also are illegal as defined by the Geneva Conventions. Obamas not alone in refusing to abide by these, Bush did it as well. Gitmo flat out shouldnt exist. In fact, much like the idea of pulling out of iraq, obama in 2008 ran on the idea that he'd close gitmo and all other torture facilities.
What the film shows i think, is the variety of torture tactics used. Yes, i absolutely and obviously beleive waterboarding is torture, but so is sleep deprivation, the use of playing music at extremely high volumes for extended amounts of time, stress positions, chaining detainees up, sensory and light deprevation, withholding of food and water, not allowing them access to bathrooms, and locking detainees up in what seemed to be a wooden box, and denying access to family, and legal counsel. Seems to me every one of these things is still in use, and still is acceptable. The whole point of a place like Gitmo is, its not on U.S. soil, so people can claim detainees dont have rights as citizens. Obama is for indefinite detention of detainees, and the Patriot Act as well.
The 2012 election featured nary a statement on torture by either Romney or Obama, and clearly if he's considering appointing a protorture guy to the head of the CIA, torture isnt a big priority for obama. Plus, you obviously could make clear assessments that things like drone strikes, military commissions, and essentially he's given other countries the go ahead to torture.
If he outlawed waterboarding, thats great, i just dont believe that was ever done. I certainly never saw it.
In my view, i think Obama and his administration, which is essentially the same hawks and jingoists that started the war, all believe that torture is frowned upon by the public. And I think they also know, that many people, and seemingly Bigelow too, this insane and delusional idea that if you torture someone, be they innocent or a Al Qaeda ringleader, that these tactics will yield results. Thats essentially what the film argued and I dont see that point of view out of step with what Bush and Cheney would argue, nor is it radically different from what Obama would argue.
Essentially we are being told Bin laden was caught because of torture techniques. I vehemently disagree.
i believe the obama admin banned the use of waterboarding when he came to office as well as some other interrogation tactics. i think this was what bigelow was getting at in the movie, especially considering the first 20 minutes of the movie.
thats a funny stand for bigelow to take, considering the main character goes from disgust and disturbed by seeing torture tactics to believing thats the way you glean information about taking out bin laden. Either tortures wrong or its justified. And to me, Bigelow suggests that its justified, and that we owe torture thanks for nabbing us bin laden.
Jessica chastain looked like she was going to throw up in those first 20 minutes. Then she comes around to the "torture is justified" paradigm.
Its not like once Bush leaves, during the movie, that Chastain is any less militaristic and forceful and vengeful in how she wants to nab bin laden. In my mind that character would have stopped at NOTHING to capture and kill bin laden. And she has personal reasons for that as shown in the film, what happens to her friend and I think the lack of support she got from the government in trying to capture bin laden. The paranoia she felt in that Al Qeada may kill her too. All that seemed to play into her decision
I didnt leave the film thinking that character, Chastains character was disavowing torture. In fact, it seemed she was completely satisfied with those tactics. The Chastain who told the detainee, "you can help yourself by telling the truth", is the same Chastain we see to end the film. Her mindset hasnt changed.
Chastain gave one of the best performances of the year, and its an interesting movie and gripping, but thats where it ends for me.
That character's objective was to get Bin Laden at all costs by any means neccessary.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
less is more sometimes. you gave 2 lengthy replies to my one post. i don't know where to start....
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
i believe the obama admin banned the use of waterboarding when he came to office as well as some other interrogation tactics. i think this was what bigelow was getting at in the movie, especially considering the first 20 minutes of the movie.
thats a funny stand for bigelow to take, considering the main character goes from disgust and disturbed by seeing torture tactics to believing thats the way you glean information about taking out bin laden. Either tortures wrong or its justified. And to me, Bigelow suggests that its justified, and that we owe torture thanks for nabbing us bin laden.
Jessica chastain looked like she was going to throw up in those first 20 minutes. Then she comes around to the "torture is justified" paradigm.
Its not like once Bush leaves, during the movie, that Chastain is any less militaristic and forceful and vengeful in how she wants to nab bin laden. In my mind that character would have stopped at NOTHING to capture and kill bin laden. And she has personal reasons for that as shown in the film, what happens to her friend and I think the lack of support she got from the government in trying to capture bin laden. The paranoia she felt in that Al Qeada may kill her too. All that seemed to play into her decision
I didnt leave the film thinking that character, Chastains character was disavowing torture. In fact, it seemed she was completely satisfied with those tactics. The Chastain who told the detainee, "you can help yourself by telling the truth", is the same Chastain we see to end the film. Her mindset hasnt changed.
Chastain gave one of the best performances of the year, and its an interesting movie and gripping, but thats where it ends for me.
That character's objective was to get Bin Laden at all costs by any means neccessary.
i'm not certain bigelow was trying to say it was justified or it wasn't. i think she was trying her best to give an accurate portrayal of how they tracked down bin laden and (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM YET. REPEAT: DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE YET :x :x ) eventually killed him . and whether people want to admit it or not, they did glean a lot of information out of those tactics.
regarding the first 20 minutes--i don't think it was that she was disgusted by what she was witnessing. i think they were just trying to emphasize how green she was and how that was her first exposure to water boarding. in fact, her telling the guy he can help himself by telling the truth enhances the fact that she was more on board with it initially than you think. i thought of it as her playing the "good cop" to the other guy's "bad cop."
i believe the obama admin banned the use of waterboarding when he came to office as well as some other interrogation tactics. i think this was what bigelow was getting at in the movie, especially considering the first 20 minutes of the movie.
thats a funny stand for bigelow to take, considering the main character goes from disgust and disturbed by seeing torture tactics to believing thats the way you glean information about taking out bin laden. Either tortures wrong or its justified. And to me, Bigelow suggests that its justified, and that we owe torture thanks for nabbing us bin laden.
Jessica chastain looked like she was going to throw up in those first 20 minutes. Then she comes around to the "torture is justified" paradigm.
Its not like once Bush leaves, during the movie, that Chastain is any less militaristic and forceful and vengeful in how she wants to nab bin laden. In my mind that character would have stopped at NOTHING to capture and kill bin laden. And she has personal reasons for that as shown in the film, what happens to her friend and I think the lack of support she got from the government in trying to capture bin laden. The paranoia she felt in that Al Qeada may kill her too. All that seemed to play into her decision
I didnt leave the film thinking that character, Chastains character was disavowing torture. In fact, it seemed she was completely satisfied with those tactics. The Chastain who told the detainee, "you can help yourself by telling the truth", is the same Chastain we see to end the film. Her mindset hasnt changed.
Chastain gave one of the best performances of the year, and its an interesting movie and gripping, but thats where it ends for me.
That character's objective was to get Bin Laden at all costs by any means neccessary.
i'm not certain bigelow was trying to say it was justified or it wasn't. i think she was trying her best to give an accurate portrayal of how they tracked down bin laden and (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM YET. REPEAT: DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE YET :x :x ) eventually killed him . and whether people want to admit it or not, they did glean a lot of information out of those tactics.
regarding the first 20 minutes--i don't think it was that she was disgusted by what she was witnessing. i think they were just trying to emphasize how green she was and how that was her first exposure to water boarding. in fact, her telling the guy he can help himself by telling the truth enhances the fact that she was more on board with it initially than you think. i thought of it as her playing the "good cop" to the other guy's "bad cop."
great movie.
interesting. For me, i just see torture as completely evil and wrong. And seeing a film like this, like Hurt Locker, where its so open ended, its brilliant in one aspect, but in the other, the absolutist in me dislikes it. I listed my favorite war movies and they all were very "this is war, and this is why its hell". They took clear stances. Bigelow seems content in making films that dont do that. And seeing as how im completely antiwar, and completely anti torture, makes sense why i would be having trouble with these 2 films. Even if they caught bin laden based on information obtained from torture, to me, that still wouldnt justify or legitimize torture as a tactic to be used. Thats what threw me off from the film. Bigelow clearly could have presented it any number of ways. What that detainee went through, its all too clear why someone would admit to something or would make something up, even if they were innocent, merely to stop the torture. That detainee could have confessed to anything at all merely to get out of that hell he was enduring. And thats precisely why torture doesnt work. You can get someone to admit to anything, and those tactics they used were inhumane. But what happens-they get good information from him. The torture is justified as portrayed in the film. I have major problems with this. I dont think anyone should be treated like what was shown in the film. Not innocent people and not terrorists or suspected terrorists, not murderers, not rapists, not anyone innocent or guilty.
The film also by going the "torture provided us with information leading to bin laden" route, ignores the fact that torture isnt only used in that manner. For every person they torture who does have information, theres 10 others who they tortured and nothing was obtained, or rather the person confessed not out of guilt, but rather to stop the torture, or you have people tortured so horrifically they die in custody. Bigelow didnt show any of those detainees. Torture is only shown as something that gets you results. Is it too violent or too harsh a tactic? Who knows, says the film, but it got us bin laden, so theres that.
She could have shown so much more. more on those accounts, but also gone more into depth about why it took 10 years to capture bin laden. The whole film was about Chastain fighting the government who wouldnt take her seriously. But its not gone into detail as to why that was (namely the 2 wars that took time, money and attention away from the goals, and useless tactics like torture, and 2 administrations just not doing anything about it
I agree, especially since Anne Hathaway was indeed nominated for supporting actress.
That said, Emmanuelle Riva gave a hell of a performance in Amour. Film starred two 80 year old actors, about a husband dealing with a wife going through Alzheimers. It was absolutely brutal, one of the best films of the year, and stunning performances all around. Depressing as hell, but glad its nominated for best picture and that Riva got the nod.
And indeed Chastain's performances was incredible. I thought she should have been nominated for both Take Shelter and Tree of Life. She's has an impressive resume
Alot of the headlines on the above are "7 ways Zero excuses torture"
bet you could name every other liberal outlet and find they said the same thing.
good for bigelow. proud of her for not cowering to our government and hollywood's political correctness and just making a movie that, she felt, was as honest as possible. i actually have a new found respect for her and this movie.
5 nominations. she won best director a few years ago. no skin off her neck.
Alot of the headlines on the above are "7 ways Zero excuses torture"[/quote]
bet you could name every other liberal outlet and find they said the same thing.
good for bigelow. proud of her for not cowering to our government and hollywood's political correctness and just making a movie that, she felt, was as honest as possible. i actually have a new found respect for her and this movie.
5 nominations. she won best director a few years ago. no skin off her neck.[/quote]
I dont think its politically correct to be against torture. I think its common sense, and engaging in torture breaks the Geneva Conventions. So its the law. And is a legal matter.
The film doesnt present torture as a fun thing. It presents it in all its horrifying and violent and dehumanizing glory. The fact that the film essentially suggests torture helped the US capture Bin Laden, and that juxtaposed with the images of the first 20 minutes, I think thats the disconnect viewers are having.
As I said, anyone who saw Hurt Locker, knows she doesnt take a stand on these issues. She could have done it with Hurt Locker, and she could have done it with this movie, and chose not to. As I pointed out the cereal grocery shopping scene and callback scene in Hurt Locker was a statement on the war.
As I said, the war films i love all take clear stands on issues, Bigelow doesnt. And I think thats to her detriment, especially in this film.
Its a pretty absurd stand to take that torture is justified. Tjhe majority of the country is against torture and opposes the use of it.
I would bet also that Bigelow is a liberal. Im not positive though. Before the film came out, it was in fact conservatives who were upset because they felt Bigelow was going to suggest torture was horrific and bad.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
i get where you are coming from man. but i am not a liberal or a conservative and i don't care what the majority of the country thinks, nor do i condone torture.
but the fact is torture did play a role in finding and killing osama bin laden.
bigelow just tried to give an accurate portrayal of what happened. i commend her on doing so, despite how upsetting that is to a lot of people. she has a lot of guts for making the movie as she did. gotta respect that.
watched it last night...really good performances by chastian and the the dude who did the torturing early on
although it needed no conformation, after watching the assault on bin laden's place, there's no way i could ever be a soldier...i don't care how well trained and armed i am, going into a fortress, in the dark, with very little intelligence on said fortress...scares the every-loving shit out of me
as for the torture scenes...a little to real for me...it's fucked up we have to do those things
Watched it last night...fuckin amazing movie, wow. Didn't know if I'd really like it that much
Mark Strong was great as usual as was that dude from friday night lights and Jason Clarke who I liked on that Chicago cop show that was cancelled :evil:
i get where you are coming from man. but i am not a liberal or a conservative and i don't care what the majority of the country thinks, nor do i condone torture.
but the fact is torture did play a role in finding and killing osama bin laden.
bigelow just tried to give an accurate portrayal of what happened. i commend her on doing so, despite how upsetting that is to a lot of people. she has a lot of guts for making the movie as she did. gotta respect that.
hopefully it wins an oscar or two...
im all for free speech and my list of heroes includes people who dont necessarily fit my own moral and ethical compass. That said, its sort of like someone arguing about race. remember that book The Bell Curve by sociologists in 94? im a sociology major myself. And the book presented arguments and "evidence" that african americans were naturally less intelligent than whites, and that it was genetic and provable. Obviously the book created a huge stir. The evidence of course was wrong. But even arguing such a thing is going to cause people to go nuts, and with good reason. Same thing with torture.
Bigelow doesnt present an accurate portrayal of what happened. Certainly america tortured more than 1 detainee. in the 10 year manhunt for bin laden. And the torture didnt end when obama came to office, as Ive said, what do you think is going on in gitmo right now.
Bigelow presents the issue as though torture does work. And that it yields results. She didnt show the documented cases where U.S. officials beat detainees to death or caused serious physical injury. Nor did the movie show torture not working. The U.S. doesnt just torture known AlQaeda operatives. Thats what the big deal about the secret black sites was. Any detainee suspected of alliance with Al Qeada is tortured, and treated in the manner that we see in the film. Its inaccurate to suggest otherwise. Torture in the film isnt shown accurately because for every detainee that ended like the one in the film, 90 other torture victims didnt yield any results, resulted in the death of the detainee, or
The guy torturing the detainee in the film refused to take "no" for an answer. And thats a problem. Because for all he knew, the detainee could really have been telling the truth. It happened that the guy was a AlQeada operative. But more often than not, the detainee knows nothing.
Bigelow accurately presents torture in the horrific violent manner that it is. Thats true. Its made crystal clear, had that detainee not known a single thing, if he was just some regular Iraqi civilian, he would have been tortured probably to death, or left to languish in that black secret site for decades.
Theres no quality control at all. And the resulting information you get isnt guaranteed to be anything important or valid. Again, the guy is waterboarding, denied food and water (and its made conditional on whether he tells the U.S. official that he knows stuff about Bin Laden), denied bathroom access, denied sunlight or access to outside, is chained inside to a chair, is shoved in this wooden box, is not allowed to sleep and has to deal with music played at extremely loud levels. etc... It should be absolutely crystal clear that anyone in such a situation would and could confess to every single terrorist attack ever perpetrated, precisely to escape and get out of such a situation. The detainees option, as an innocent civilian, is to either die in custody, or tell the truth and get the U.S. officials off his back.
As I said, you cant torture. It violates U.S. law. Its illegal under the Geneva Conventions. So even torture that results in the capture of someone like Bin laden is illegal and a war crime.
The lie of the film is that torture is necessary, is sucessful and useful and provides the U.S. with information about terrorism and terrorists.
No one deserves to be treated like that. No one. The Geneva Conventions exist for a reason. We dont torture. And shouldnt. Its not how you treat other human beings.
watched it last night...really good performances by chastian and the the dude who did the torturing early on
although it needed no conformation, after watching the assault on bin laden's place, there's no way i could ever be a soldier...i don't care how well trained and armed i am, going into a fortress, in the dark, with very little intelligence on said fortress...scares the every-loving shit out of me
as for the torture scenes...a little to real for me...it's fucked up we have to do those things
We dont have to do those things. And as I said, its illegal and a war crime. You cant treat people like that. Theres a reason the U.S. torture facilities are all in other countries outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
Theres no legal justification and okay, in terms of what you saw in the first 20 minutes. It was flat out a war crime, and its easily definable as such.
That said, i thought the assault on bin laden's hiding place was damn accurate in terms of portrayal. It resulting in lots of innocent civilians dying, people who merely lived at that place. They seemed to try and spare the women and children, but some did get killed. And some saw their parents or family murdered in front of them. You have to look at it from the Pakistani's point of view too. Id be completely scared to have American soldiers break into my house in the dead of night, speaking in a foreign language, yelling and brandishing weapons and seemingly shooting at will and at random. It seemed clear, when they broke in, anyone they encountered, they would shoot.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
i get where you are coming from man. but i am not a liberal or a conservative and i don't care what the majority of the country thinks, nor do i condone torture.
but the fact is torture did play a role in finding and killing osama bin laden.
bigelow just tried to give an accurate portrayal of what happened. i commend her on doing so, despite how upsetting that is to a lot of people. she has a lot of guts for making the movie as she did. gotta respect that.
hopefully it wins an oscar or two...
im all for free speech and my list of heroes includes people who dont necessarily fit my own moral and ethical compass. That said, its sort of like someone arguing about race. remember that book The Bell Curve by sociologists in 94? im a sociology major myself. And the book presented arguments and "evidence" that african americans were naturally less intelligent than whites, and that it was genetic and provable. Obviously the book created a huge stir. The evidence of course was wrong. But even arguing such a thing is going to cause people to go nuts, and with good reason. Same thing with torture.
Bigelow doesnt present an accurate portrayal of what happened. Certainly america tortured more than 1 detainee. in the 10 year manhunt for bin laden. And the torture didnt end when obama came to office, as Ive said, what do you think is going on in gitmo right now.
Bigelow presents the issue as though torture does work. And that it yields results. She didnt show the documented cases where U.S. officials beat detainees to death or caused serious physical injury. Nor did the movie show torture not working. The U.S. doesnt just torture known AlQaeda operatives. Thats what the big deal about the secret black sites was. Any detainee suspected of alliance with Al Qeada is tortured, and treated in the manner that we see in the film. Its inaccurate to suggest otherwise. Torture in the film isnt shown accurately because for every detainee that ended like the one in the film, 90 other torture victims didnt yield any results, resulted in the death of the detainee, or
The guy torturing the detainee in the film refused to take "no" for an answer. And thats a problem. Because for all he knew, the detainee could really have been telling the truth. It happened that the guy was a AlQeada operative. But more often than not, the detainee knows nothing.
Bigelow accurately presents torture in the horrific violent manner that it is. Thats true. Its made crystal clear, had that detainee not known a single thing, if he was just some regular Iraqi civilian, he would have been tortured probably to death, or left to languish in that black secret site for decades.
Theres no quality control at all. And the resulting information you get isnt guaranteed to be anything important or valid. Again, the guy is waterboarding, denied food and water (and its made conditional on whether he tells the U.S. official that he knows stuff about Bin Laden), denied bathroom access, denied sunlight or access to outside, is chained inside to a chair, is shoved in this wooden box, is not allowed to sleep and has to deal with music played at extremely loud levels. etc... It should be absolutely crystal clear that anyone in such a situation would and could confess to every single terrorist attack ever perpetrated, precisely to escape and get out of such a situation. The detainees option, as an innocent civilian, is to either die in custody, or tell the truth and get the U.S. officials off his back.
As I said, you cant torture. It violates U.S. law. Its illegal under the Geneva Conventions. So even torture that results in the capture of someone like Bin laden is illegal and a war crime.
The lie of the film is that torture is necessary, is sucessful and useful and provides the U.S. with information about terrorism and terrorists.
No one deserves to be treated like that. No one. The Geneva Conventions exist for a reason. We dont torture. And shouldnt. Its not how you treat other human beings.
it's a movie, dude. she tried to portray it as acurately as possible and i think she did a damn good job.
tortue did help find bin laden, though peter bergen has said al queda operatives were also not beaten to a pulp like the guy in the beginning of the movie was... it also didn't in a lot of cases. but it's already close to 3 hours long, she can't get into every little detail that happened over a 10 year time frame. obama admin banned torture in 09. sure it probably still existed to an extent, but it may have been more difficult to do based on all of the info that go leaked in years prior, etc. yada.yada.yada.
glad to see chastain win last night. she was phenomenal.
i agree about chastain. Well deserved, But its more than just a movie. You cant say she portrays it accurately and does a good job at it, then say its just a movie.
Prior to it even hitting theaters there was a debate mostly from conservatives who felt Bigelow would suggest torture was wrong and the war crime that it is.
Bigelow had an agenda, just as she did with Hurt Locker. She could have presented both as antiwar, get out of Iraq and end torture films. Thats what Ive been suggesting for weeks. Hurt Locker isnt some great statement on the war. Its statement is quiet, and not forceful or loud at all. Which is why I had a problem with it. As I said, it was a slice of life movie about the military, with some rather abstract scenes about coming home and i guess PTSD, that the average moviegoer I think has no idea was even presented in the film.
With Zero, she could have made even in 3 hours, a clear statement that torture was wrong. She had enough time to say it was justified, so the opposite would also prove true.
Bigelow made a conscious decision on the torture and how it was portrayed and what the conclusion would be in the film. She could have left it way more ambiguous and let the viewer decide as well.
For me, torture isnt black and white. I dont view torture of detainees as justified, nor would I find torture of american prisoners justified. Its just something i find as expressed in our laws, as being wrong. Its not how you treat a human being. So Bigelow presenting it as justified to me is so far beyond the pale that its hard to even consider her point.
Also the idea that the U.S. had it somehow all neat and tidy-only torture known terrorist's and only people they knew had information. thats just not the case. the truth is the U.S. tortured detainees to death, beat them, and did everything in the film, and the detainees died and no info was ever extracted, or the detainee died and they were innocent the whole time, or the detainee was flat out innocent and is still in some god forsaken place languishing away because he truely has never known anything relating to bin laden or alqeada or terrorism.
Bigelow made conscious decisions. Its a good film, and to me Chastain is the big star in this, she got a well deserved Golden Globe and probably will get an Oscar too. But as far as poltics and larger ideas, I think this film failed just like Hurt Locker did.
For me, its the juxtaposition. I dont know how anyone could watch the first 20 minutes and be for the tactics used. Its flat out inhumane.
I think for me there are some issues, slavery, torture, racism, war, and the like, these are topics that I have such strong opinions about, that for me, a proslavery movie, or pro racism or prowar movie would cause the same reaction out of me. Its just not something thats conceivable to me. I dont view racism as having a good side for example.
But as I said, she's free to do what she wants and if nothing else we got a stunning performance out of Chastain because of it.
If something is a war crime, and is against the geneva conventions to me that says you dont do that. Even if it produces results. Its morals and ethics and just the golden rule. I dont think we should chain fellow humans to chairs and deny them food and water and access to lawyers and familes. Its just not up for discussion.
And the larger point im making as I said, is the torture portrayed in the film is largely fiction. The U.S. may be torturing or did torture on a large scale like that, but rarely would that stuff lead to any important or real information. I think Bigelow has a responsibility to show that. If she was making a movie about slavery, and she argued it was justified, it would be her responsibility to show that slavery was brutal, horrific, terrible and wrong. Im not even talking her artistic responsibility, Im talking her responsibility as a human being on planet earth.
While i definitely respect Bergen, the guy did what few other people did he actually talked to bin laden and got his opinion on things, i think he's wrong to suggest torturing of alqeada operative wasnt like it was portrayed in the film. The whole point is theres no way to tell who is alqeada from a regular middle eastern citizen. I dont think the CIA was treating the guy in the film any different than they would a truely innocent civilian who knew nothing. Anyone who thinks they could withstand the torture in the film and not confess to a bunch of stuff merely to survive, is flat out lying. Plus, they even talk about how sleep deprivation and all the other tactics are mainly used to disorient the detainee. He doesnt know what he said, he's so out of it from lack of sleep and food and light deprivation, that he cant remember what happened yesterday. So as they do in the film, they can say "hey yesterday you said you knew who bin laden's courier was". In reality, thats a slippery slope. It really doesnt provide any valid information.
I just think theres better ways to get information. And the treatment fuels hatred of america. It just does. Why is treatment of suspected alqeada members of another country, treated differently than a man picked up and accused of murder in Arizona? The actual american prison system is another story, as is interrogation, but you can bet even the most fanatical "lock up the criminals" citizens here in the U.S. would raise bloody hell if an american was treated like that. Denying someone acess to food, water, a bathroom and a lawyer? really? thats basic human rights.
The film seems to suggest Abu Gharaib was a huge blow to them, not because it morally was wrong to put detainees in dog collars and have them get down on their hands and knees and crawl, or to make them get naked and form a human pyramid, the ethical dilemma the film seems perplexed by is the idea that it made the interrogaters jobs harder and made it harder for them to get information.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
why does a movie have to be about making a statement?
right or wrong, torture did play a role in finding and capturing the guy. i don't think she was making a statement one way or the other. i think she was trying to give an accurate portrayal. it's accuracy seems to vary depending upon who you ask. i guess we're just going in circles here.
well maybe maya in tears as the movie ends is the biggest statement...she just succesfully closed out a 10 year chapter in her life, was responsible for capturing the man who killed over 3,000 people and negatively altered the course of the entire world really, and yet there's hardly any rejoicing or happiness. just tears... and credits rolling.
why does a movie have to be about making a statement?
right or wrong, torture did play a role in finding and capturing the guy. i don't think she was making a statement one way or the other. i think she was trying to give an accurate portrayal. it's accuracy seems to vary depending upon who you ask. i guess we're just going in circles here.
well maybe maya in tears as the movie ends is the biggest statement...she just succesfully closed out a 10 year chapter in her life, was responsible for capturing the man who killed over 3,000 people and negatively altered the course of the entire world really, and yet there's hardly any rejoicing or happiness. just tears... and credits rolling.
saying torture played a role is making a statement. Merely suggesting that is a statement. Maya's opinion of torture is the films opinion. I argued i felt she was repulsed by torture at first, then grew to embrace and accept it as legitimate. Either way, its hard to argue that by the end of the film, she and everyone else feels completely justified in tortures use. The film doesnt seperate good and bad torture. All torture is good by default because thats the only kind thats presented. Torture led to capturing Bin laden, and thus any time its used its justified.
Bigelow is about statements. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.
I just think anyone who thinks torture is effective didnt watch the first part of the film. The tactics could have resulted in ANYONE confessing to any crime. And its a matter of common human decency. You dont deny human beings food, water, bathroom access, sunlight, you dont put humans in boxes, or put them in dog collars.
I dont care if torture captured anyone. Its the principle of it. If you accept it worked for Bin laden, you by default are accepting that its a justified and legitimate thing that can yield results. Which it doesnt. Making someone think they are drowning is not only unethical and gross, but could very obviously lead to anyone confessing to anything.
Again, i'd have a hard time talking to someone who said whipping slaves was necessary and justified. I just couldnt take that person seriously. Same with anyone arguing for torture use. Its just so far removed from my own personal ethical and moral ideas.
Anyone who thinks Bigelow didnt try and be as accurate and historically accurate as she could with this film is crazy. I heard she had CIA agents on set. So the idea that its just a movie, or is just one portrayal is silly. Its not some big budget popcorn flick to make money. She's clearly making some sort of statement.
Anyone can read about what goes on in terms of torture at US Black secret sites. Anyone who cares to know about how detainees, accused detainees are treated can go easily find out about it. The truth is more than one person was tortured during that 10 year span. And for every guy that ended up like the guy in the film, there were many more who offered absolutely nothing tangible to the interrogators. Or were tortured and revealed stuff that was made up.
Again, i just cant fathom a world where someone could watch those first 20 minutes and say "hey that worked out, lets continue on doing this".
Everyone involved, at least from the torture standpoint of this film, and yes it was based on an actual agent, Maya was real, should be tried for war crimes. Thats not my opinion, thats U.S. law.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
Comments
good point. and thats part of the head scratcher. Whatever you feel about obama, the guy isnt an antitorture guy. Gitmo and the other torture centers are still up and running. Its clear, Obama just like bush did, believes that torture is justified and can yield results. In fact, right now, as of a day ago, Obama's new pick to head the CIA, was a guy who had previously been explicitly pro-torture tactics. Bush certainly shares blame for torture being used, but Obama had a chance to completely change things, he could have shut down gitmo, given all suspected terrorists access to lawyers, done away with the disturbing tactics the movie expertly shows. The fact is, he hasnt done any of that. The secret prisons still exist.
I think that was part of my beef with the movie, it seemed like the torture was shown during the bush years during the film, then it was suggested that Obama was somehow standing in the way of these tactics, when he is essentially for them.
Chomsky suggested something, and im apt to believe it, that Obama is more militaristic than Bush. And I think he has a point. Bush for all his major flaws and misdeeds, never went into another country and killed leaders. He killed civilians to be sure, But obama seems to view the solution as secretly going into another country, killing someone and then thats that. Thats a dangerous precedent to set.
I dont get Bigelow. She could have done so much more with this film.
i believe the obama admin banned the use of waterboarding when he came to office as well as some other interrogation tactics. i think this was what bigelow was getting at in the movie, especially considering the first 20 minutes of the movie.
to each their own i guess. Looking at the top movies of 2012 list, seems like i watch more movies than nearly anyone on the board, and i hardly ever go see the mainstream popcorn films. I love all films, and saw hundreds this year, but most were indie films.
He has the power to get rid of gitmo. What exactly do you think is happening there? Did Obama get rid of the inhumane no access to lawyer "rule". The fact is, any torture, including all those tactics shown in the film are not only inhumane, but also are illegal as defined by the Geneva Conventions. Obamas not alone in refusing to abide by these, Bush did it as well. Gitmo flat out shouldnt exist. In fact, much like the idea of pulling out of iraq, obama in 2008 ran on the idea that he'd close gitmo and all other torture facilities.
What the film shows i think, is the variety of torture tactics used. Yes, i absolutely and obviously beleive waterboarding is torture, but so is sleep deprivation, the use of playing music at extremely high volumes for extended amounts of time, stress positions, chaining detainees up, sensory and light deprevation, withholding of food and water, not allowing them access to bathrooms, and locking detainees up in what seemed to be a wooden box, and denying access to family, and legal counsel. Seems to me every one of these things is still in use, and still is acceptable. The whole point of a place like Gitmo is, its not on U.S. soil, so people can claim detainees dont have rights as citizens. Obama is for indefinite detention of detainees, and the Patriot Act as well.
The 2012 election featured nary a statement on torture by either Romney or Obama, and clearly if he's considering appointing a protorture guy to the head of the CIA, torture isnt a big priority for obama. Plus, you obviously could make clear assessments that things like drone strikes, military commissions, and essentially he's given other countries the go ahead to torture.
If he outlawed waterboarding, thats great, i just dont believe that was ever done. I certainly never saw it.
In my view, i think Obama and his administration, which is essentially the same hawks and jingoists that started the war, all believe that torture is frowned upon by the public. And I think they also know, that many people, and seemingly Bigelow too, this insane and delusional idea that if you torture someone, be they innocent or a Al Qaeda ringleader, that these tactics will yield results. Thats essentially what the film argued and I dont see that point of view out of step with what Bush and Cheney would argue, nor is it radically different from what Obama would argue.
Essentially we are being told Bin laden was caught because of torture techniques. I vehemently disagree.
thats a funny stand for bigelow to take, considering the main character goes from disgust and disturbed by seeing torture tactics to believing thats the way you glean information about taking out bin laden. Either tortures wrong or its justified. And to me, Bigelow suggests that its justified, and that we owe torture thanks for nabbing us bin laden.
Jessica chastain looked like she was going to throw up in those first 20 minutes. Then she comes around to the "torture is justified" paradigm.
Its not like once Bush leaves, during the movie, that Chastain is any less militaristic and forceful and vengeful in how she wants to nab bin laden. In my mind that character would have stopped at NOTHING to capture and kill bin laden. And she has personal reasons for that as shown in the film, what happens to her friend and I think the lack of support she got from the government in trying to capture bin laden. The paranoia she felt in that Al Qeada may kill her too. All that seemed to play into her decision
I didnt leave the film thinking that character, Chastains character was disavowing torture. In fact, it seemed she was completely satisfied with those tactics. The Chastain who told the detainee, "you can help yourself by telling the truth", is the same Chastain we see to end the film. Her mindset hasnt changed.
Chastain gave one of the best performances of the year, and its an interesting movie and gripping, but thats where it ends for me.
That character's objective was to get Bin Laden at all costs by any means neccessary.
i'm not certain bigelow was trying to say it was justified or it wasn't. i think she was trying her best to give an accurate portrayal of how they tracked down bin laden and (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM YET. REPEAT: DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE YET :x :x ) eventually killed him
regarding the first 20 minutes--i don't think it was that she was disgusted by what she was witnessing. i think they were just trying to emphasize how green she was and how that was her first exposure to water boarding. in fact, her telling the guy he can help himself by telling the truth enhances the fact that she was more on board with it initially than you think. i thought of it as her playing the "good cop" to the other guy's "bad cop."
great movie.
interesting. For me, i just see torture as completely evil and wrong. And seeing a film like this, like Hurt Locker, where its so open ended, its brilliant in one aspect, but in the other, the absolutist in me dislikes it. I listed my favorite war movies and they all were very "this is war, and this is why its hell". They took clear stances. Bigelow seems content in making films that dont do that. And seeing as how im completely antiwar, and completely anti torture, makes sense why i would be having trouble with these 2 films. Even if they caught bin laden based on information obtained from torture, to me, that still wouldnt justify or legitimize torture as a tactic to be used. Thats what threw me off from the film. Bigelow clearly could have presented it any number of ways. What that detainee went through, its all too clear why someone would admit to something or would make something up, even if they were innocent, merely to stop the torture. That detainee could have confessed to anything at all merely to get out of that hell he was enduring. And thats precisely why torture doesnt work. You can get someone to admit to anything, and those tactics they used were inhumane. But what happens-they get good information from him. The torture is justified as portrayed in the film. I have major problems with this. I dont think anyone should be treated like what was shown in the film. Not innocent people and not terrorists or suspected terrorists, not murderers, not rapists, not anyone innocent or guilty.
The film also by going the "torture provided us with information leading to bin laden" route, ignores the fact that torture isnt only used in that manner. For every person they torture who does have information, theres 10 others who they tortured and nothing was obtained, or rather the person confessed not out of guilt, but rather to stop the torture, or you have people tortured so horrifically they die in custody. Bigelow didnt show any of those detainees. Torture is only shown as something that gets you results. Is it too violent or too harsh a tactic? Who knows, says the film, but it got us bin laden, so theres that.
She could have shown so much more. more on those accounts, but also gone more into depth about why it took 10 years to capture bin laden. The whole film was about Chastain fighting the government who wouldnt take her seriously. But its not gone into detail as to why that was (namely the 2 wars that took time, money and attention away from the goals, and useless tactics like torture, and 2 administrations just not doing anything about it
I agree, especially since Anne Hathaway was indeed nominated for supporting actress.
That said, Emmanuelle Riva gave a hell of a performance in Amour. Film starred two 80 year old actors, about a husband dealing with a wife going through Alzheimers. It was absolutely brutal, one of the best films of the year, and stunning performances all around. Depressing as hell, but glad its nominated for best picture and that Riva got the nod.
And indeed Chastain's performances was incredible. I thought she should have been nominated for both Take Shelter and Tree of Life. She's has an impressive resume
who? diane fienstein and john mccain?
grow some balls academy:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/en ... 0308.story
HuffPo
Alternet
PBS
Mother Jones
Salon
Alot of the headlines on the above are "7 ways Zero excuses torture"
bet you could name every other liberal outlet and find they said the same thing.
good for bigelow. proud of her for not cowering to our government and hollywood's political correctness and just making a movie that, she felt, was as honest as possible. i actually have a new found respect for her and this movie.
5 nominations. she won best director a few years ago. no skin off her neck.
Alternet
PBS
Mother Jones
Salon
Alot of the headlines on the above are "7 ways Zero excuses torture"[/quote]
bet you could name every other liberal outlet and find they said the same thing.
good for bigelow. proud of her for not cowering to our government and hollywood's political correctness and just making a movie that, she felt, was as honest as possible. i actually have a new found respect for her and this movie.
5 nominations. she won best director a few years ago. no skin off her neck.[/quote]
I dont think its politically correct to be against torture. I think its common sense, and engaging in torture breaks the Geneva Conventions. So its the law. And is a legal matter.
The film doesnt present torture as a fun thing. It presents it in all its horrifying and violent and dehumanizing glory. The fact that the film essentially suggests torture helped the US capture Bin Laden, and that juxtaposed with the images of the first 20 minutes, I think thats the disconnect viewers are having.
As I said, anyone who saw Hurt Locker, knows she doesnt take a stand on these issues. She could have done it with Hurt Locker, and she could have done it with this movie, and chose not to. As I pointed out the cereal grocery shopping scene and callback scene in Hurt Locker was a statement on the war.
As I said, the war films i love all take clear stands on issues, Bigelow doesnt. And I think thats to her detriment, especially in this film.
Its a pretty absurd stand to take that torture is justified. Tjhe majority of the country is against torture and opposes the use of it.
I would bet also that Bigelow is a liberal. Im not positive though. Before the film came out, it was in fact conservatives who were upset because they felt Bigelow was going to suggest torture was horrific and bad.
but the fact is torture did play a role in finding and killing osama bin laden.
bigelow just tried to give an accurate portrayal of what happened. i commend her on doing so, despite how upsetting that is to a lot of people. she has a lot of guts for making the movie as she did. gotta respect that.
hopefully it wins an oscar or two...
although it needed no conformation, after watching the assault on bin laden's place, there's no way i could ever be a soldier...i don't care how well trained and armed i am, going into a fortress, in the dark, with very little intelligence on said fortress...scares the every-loving shit out of me
as for the torture scenes...a little to real for me...it's fucked up we have to do those things
Mark Strong was great as usual as was that dude from friday night lights and Jason Clarke who I liked on that Chicago cop show that was cancelled :evil:
Just really well done
im all for free speech and my list of heroes includes people who dont necessarily fit my own moral and ethical compass. That said, its sort of like someone arguing about race. remember that book The Bell Curve by sociologists in 94? im a sociology major myself. And the book presented arguments and "evidence" that african americans were naturally less intelligent than whites, and that it was genetic and provable. Obviously the book created a huge stir. The evidence of course was wrong. But even arguing such a thing is going to cause people to go nuts, and with good reason. Same thing with torture.
Bigelow doesnt present an accurate portrayal of what happened. Certainly america tortured more than 1 detainee. in the 10 year manhunt for bin laden. And the torture didnt end when obama came to office, as Ive said, what do you think is going on in gitmo right now.
Bigelow presents the issue as though torture does work. And that it yields results. She didnt show the documented cases where U.S. officials beat detainees to death or caused serious physical injury. Nor did the movie show torture not working. The U.S. doesnt just torture known AlQaeda operatives. Thats what the big deal about the secret black sites was. Any detainee suspected of alliance with Al Qeada is tortured, and treated in the manner that we see in the film. Its inaccurate to suggest otherwise. Torture in the film isnt shown accurately because for every detainee that ended like the one in the film, 90 other torture victims didnt yield any results, resulted in the death of the detainee, or
The guy torturing the detainee in the film refused to take "no" for an answer. And thats a problem. Because for all he knew, the detainee could really have been telling the truth. It happened that the guy was a AlQeada operative. But more often than not, the detainee knows nothing.
Bigelow accurately presents torture in the horrific violent manner that it is. Thats true. Its made crystal clear, had that detainee not known a single thing, if he was just some regular Iraqi civilian, he would have been tortured probably to death, or left to languish in that black secret site for decades.
Theres no quality control at all. And the resulting information you get isnt guaranteed to be anything important or valid. Again, the guy is waterboarding, denied food and water (and its made conditional on whether he tells the U.S. official that he knows stuff about Bin Laden), denied bathroom access, denied sunlight or access to outside, is chained inside to a chair, is shoved in this wooden box, is not allowed to sleep and has to deal with music played at extremely loud levels. etc... It should be absolutely crystal clear that anyone in such a situation would and could confess to every single terrorist attack ever perpetrated, precisely to escape and get out of such a situation. The detainees option, as an innocent civilian, is to either die in custody, or tell the truth and get the U.S. officials off his back.
As I said, you cant torture. It violates U.S. law. Its illegal under the Geneva Conventions. So even torture that results in the capture of someone like Bin laden is illegal and a war crime.
The lie of the film is that torture is necessary, is sucessful and useful and provides the U.S. with information about terrorism and terrorists.
No one deserves to be treated like that. No one. The Geneva Conventions exist for a reason. We dont torture. And shouldnt. Its not how you treat other human beings.
We dont have to do those things. And as I said, its illegal and a war crime. You cant treat people like that. Theres a reason the U.S. torture facilities are all in other countries outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
Theres no legal justification and okay, in terms of what you saw in the first 20 minutes. It was flat out a war crime, and its easily definable as such.
That said, i thought the assault on bin laden's hiding place was damn accurate in terms of portrayal. It resulting in lots of innocent civilians dying, people who merely lived at that place. They seemed to try and spare the women and children, but some did get killed. And some saw their parents or family murdered in front of them. You have to look at it from the Pakistani's point of view too. Id be completely scared to have American soldiers break into my house in the dead of night, speaking in a foreign language, yelling and brandishing weapons and seemingly shooting at will and at random. It seemed clear, when they broke in, anyone they encountered, they would shoot.
it's a movie, dude. she tried to portray it as acurately as possible and i think she did a damn good job.
tortue did help find bin laden, though peter bergen has said al queda operatives were also not beaten to a pulp like the guy in the beginning of the movie was... it also didn't in a lot of cases. but it's already close to 3 hours long, she can't get into every little detail that happened over a 10 year time frame. obama admin banned torture in 09. sure it probably still existed to an extent, but it may have been more difficult to do based on all of the info that go leaked in years prior, etc. yada.yada.yada.
glad to see chastain win last night. she was phenomenal.
Prior to it even hitting theaters there was a debate mostly from conservatives who felt Bigelow would suggest torture was wrong and the war crime that it is.
Bigelow had an agenda, just as she did with Hurt Locker. She could have presented both as antiwar, get out of Iraq and end torture films. Thats what Ive been suggesting for weeks. Hurt Locker isnt some great statement on the war. Its statement is quiet, and not forceful or loud at all. Which is why I had a problem with it. As I said, it was a slice of life movie about the military, with some rather abstract scenes about coming home and i guess PTSD, that the average moviegoer I think has no idea was even presented in the film.
With Zero, she could have made even in 3 hours, a clear statement that torture was wrong. She had enough time to say it was justified, so the opposite would also prove true.
Bigelow made a conscious decision on the torture and how it was portrayed and what the conclusion would be in the film. She could have left it way more ambiguous and let the viewer decide as well.
For me, torture isnt black and white. I dont view torture of detainees as justified, nor would I find torture of american prisoners justified. Its just something i find as expressed in our laws, as being wrong. Its not how you treat a human being. So Bigelow presenting it as justified to me is so far beyond the pale that its hard to even consider her point.
Also the idea that the U.S. had it somehow all neat and tidy-only torture known terrorist's and only people they knew had information. thats just not the case. the truth is the U.S. tortured detainees to death, beat them, and did everything in the film, and the detainees died and no info was ever extracted, or the detainee died and they were innocent the whole time, or the detainee was flat out innocent and is still in some god forsaken place languishing away because he truely has never known anything relating to bin laden or alqeada or terrorism.
Bigelow made conscious decisions. Its a good film, and to me Chastain is the big star in this, she got a well deserved Golden Globe and probably will get an Oscar too. But as far as poltics and larger ideas, I think this film failed just like Hurt Locker did.
For me, its the juxtaposition. I dont know how anyone could watch the first 20 minutes and be for the tactics used. Its flat out inhumane.
I think for me there are some issues, slavery, torture, racism, war, and the like, these are topics that I have such strong opinions about, that for me, a proslavery movie, or pro racism or prowar movie would cause the same reaction out of me. Its just not something thats conceivable to me. I dont view racism as having a good side for example.
But as I said, she's free to do what she wants and if nothing else we got a stunning performance out of Chastain because of it.
If something is a war crime, and is against the geneva conventions to me that says you dont do that. Even if it produces results. Its morals and ethics and just the golden rule. I dont think we should chain fellow humans to chairs and deny them food and water and access to lawyers and familes. Its just not up for discussion.
And the larger point im making as I said, is the torture portrayed in the film is largely fiction. The U.S. may be torturing or did torture on a large scale like that, but rarely would that stuff lead to any important or real information. I think Bigelow has a responsibility to show that. If she was making a movie about slavery, and she argued it was justified, it would be her responsibility to show that slavery was brutal, horrific, terrible and wrong. Im not even talking her artistic responsibility, Im talking her responsibility as a human being on planet earth.
While i definitely respect Bergen, the guy did what few other people did he actually talked to bin laden and got his opinion on things, i think he's wrong to suggest torturing of alqeada operative wasnt like it was portrayed in the film. The whole point is theres no way to tell who is alqeada from a regular middle eastern citizen. I dont think the CIA was treating the guy in the film any different than they would a truely innocent civilian who knew nothing. Anyone who thinks they could withstand the torture in the film and not confess to a bunch of stuff merely to survive, is flat out lying. Plus, they even talk about how sleep deprivation and all the other tactics are mainly used to disorient the detainee. He doesnt know what he said, he's so out of it from lack of sleep and food and light deprivation, that he cant remember what happened yesterday. So as they do in the film, they can say "hey yesterday you said you knew who bin laden's courier was". In reality, thats a slippery slope. It really doesnt provide any valid information.
I just think theres better ways to get information. And the treatment fuels hatred of america. It just does. Why is treatment of suspected alqeada members of another country, treated differently than a man picked up and accused of murder in Arizona? The actual american prison system is another story, as is interrogation, but you can bet even the most fanatical "lock up the criminals" citizens here in the U.S. would raise bloody hell if an american was treated like that. Denying someone acess to food, water, a bathroom and a lawyer? really? thats basic human rights.
The film seems to suggest Abu Gharaib was a huge blow to them, not because it morally was wrong to put detainees in dog collars and have them get down on their hands and knees and crawl, or to make them get naked and form a human pyramid, the ethical dilemma the film seems perplexed by is the idea that it made the interrogaters jobs harder and made it harder for them to get information.
right or wrong, torture did play a role in finding and capturing the guy. i don't think she was making a statement one way or the other. i think she was trying to give an accurate portrayal. it's accuracy seems to vary depending upon who you ask. i guess we're just going in circles here.
well maybe maya in tears as the movie ends is the biggest statement...she just succesfully closed out a 10 year chapter in her life, was responsible for capturing the man who killed over 3,000 people and negatively altered the course of the entire world really, and yet there's hardly any rejoicing or happiness. just tears... and credits rolling.
war is hell!
Just watched it. :corn:
-Seattle,Wash-Key Arena-9/22/9 -Pemberton,B.C-7/17/16
-Vancouver,B.C-GM Place -9/25/9 -Seattle,Wash-Safeco Field-8/8/18
-Vancouver,B.C-Pacific Coliseum-9/25/11 -Seattle,Wash-Safeco Field-8/10/18
-Misoula,MT-Adams Field House-9/30/12
agree to disagree man.
Hasn't there been interviews with the people who got the name of the courier?
michael hayden (former cia director) is on record as saying it "helped" lead them to bin laden.
i'm sure there are others who will disagree with him though.
Gotcha. I have to check this out soon. Gotta see this and Django.