Zero Dark Thirty

The Juggler

musicismylife78 wrote:

looks like i wasnt the only person who felt the film didnt take a hard enough stance against torture

who? diane fienstein and john mccain?

grow some balls academy:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/en ... 0308.story

musicismylife78

The Juggler wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

looks like i wasnt the only person who felt the film didnt take a hard enough stance against torture

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"

musicismylife78

it was enough of a buzz for the studio to release a statement about it

The Juggler

musicismylife78 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

looks like i wasnt the only person who felt the film didnt take a hard enough stance against torture

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.

musicismylife78

HuffPo
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.

The Juggler

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...

norm

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

CROJAM95

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:

Just really well done

musicismylife78

The Juggler wrote:

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.

musicismylife78

norm wrote:

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.

The Juggler

musicismylife78 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

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.

musicismylife78

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.

The Juggler

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.


war is hell!

RobbyD462

Good movie!
Just watched it. :corn:

musicismylife78

The Juggler wrote:

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.

The Juggler

agree to disagree man.

peacefrompaul

About to watch it here soon

Cliffy6745

I still need to see the movie, hoping to this weekend, but isn't it a fact that the information that lead to bin laden was not gotten through torture?

Hasn't there been interviews with the people who got the name of the courier?

The Juggler

Cliffy6745 wrote:

I still need to see the movie, hoping to this weekend, but isn't it a fact that the information that lead to bin laden was not gotten through torture?

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.

Cliffy6745

The Juggler wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

I still need to see the movie, hoping to this weekend, but isn't it a fact that the information that lead to bin laden was not gotten through torture?

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.