"Zero Dark Thirty" Is About Much More Than Torture

 

Zero Dark Thirty - Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, written by Mark Boal, starring Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, and Mark Strong - Rated R

 

 

 

 

The killing of Osama bin Laden, or UBL, as he’s referred to in this film, captivated me much as it captivated most of the western world.  It was one of those strange moments in history when we found ourselves cheerful and exuberant because of a death. Okay, not just “a” death, but “the” death of the world’s most infamous terrorist. After the good feelings subsided, the questions began. How did they find him? Who shot him? Where’s the body? Are their pictures? Those types of questions can hold interesting answers, sure, but there are much more important questions, such as: Does this change anything? Was all the work and money spent really worth it? Had people died in vain during the long search? Zero Dark Thirty, the latest from director Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker), attempts to answer, and at least asks, most if not all of both types of questions.

Zero Dark Thirty handles the why and the how of the manhunt expertly. We’re given multiple examples of the terrorism that explain the need for UBL’s capture, most notably the sounds of 9/11 played over a black screen. Then we are presented with how information was procured not just for UBL’s capture, but also in the attempt to thwart any terrorism. This, of course, is where the film ventures into controversial territory because torture (depending on your definition of the word) was used in the early years of the war on terror. The debate is whether the film condones torture as an effective means of gaining intelligence. Some are using the film as evidence that, yes, torture brought us the information to get UBL. Is that true? Sort of. Certainly advances are made by the investigators in the film thanks to torture, but in no way is this film some ringing endorsement of the practice. If anything, the film makes it clear that torture messes people up on both sides of the situation. It also shows that information can be gained through nonviolent means, as well. Anyway, this film will only start an argument about torture; it won’t finish it.

Because of the torture elements, Zero Dark Thirty can be a difficult film to watch, but that’s the point. The main character, CIA agent Maya (Jessica Chastain), appears to serve as a representative of the audience when we first see her. She is in the interrogation chamber, and she seems sickened by what she sees. Thankfully, Maya is not simply a personification of how the audience should feel because, once left alone with the detainee, she does not cry or turn into a sympathetic, helpful woman. Instead, she coldly lets the detainee know that they want information, and they are going to get it.

 

If Zero Dark Thirty is anything more than a procedural about the UBL manhunt, then it is a character portrait of Maya.  Perhaps Maya does not necessarily represent the audience so much as she is the personification of the war on terror.  Are terrible means justified by the ends?  Just how long can people keep fighting this war?  Maya has to go through all of that along with being faced with actual terrorism.  It is because of this focus, and Chastain’s amazing performance, that Zero Dark Thirty becomes much more than a docudrama.  Chastain is equal parts victim and perpetrator.  I don’t mean that legally speaking, but emotionally.  It’s a very hard balance to strike without seeming completely inconsistent, but Chastain is able to convey, believably, a character than can cry one moment and face down her boss or a detainee the next.

 

The rest of the cast is impressive, as well, if not for performances then for the sheer variety of it.  The standout, aside from Chastain, has to be Jason Clarke, as a slightly eccentric interrogator.  He brings some serious intensity to the role and a surprising amount of much needed comedic relief.  I’m not sure why he’s being left out of the previews so much because he carries a bit of the film’s weight.  The rest of the cast is great, but those two performances really stood out to me.

 

Watching the previews, one would assume that this film is largely about the raid on UBL’s compound.  This is misleading, just as the focus on Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt in the previews is misleading (they are minor characters in the overall film).  Zero Dark Thirty is a modern spy film in that the majority of it is about the inner politics of the CIA and how information is gathered, lost, painstakingly analyzed, ignored, etc.  It is interesting that James Bond is experiencing a resurgence the same year that this film is released because Maya represents a realistic Bond character in that she is not allowed to do all the things Bond can do even though her ultimate goal is similar to Bond’s in that she wants to stop the bad guy.  There is nothing glamorous about the work Maya does.  To be honest, most of it is boring.  The tediousness of the work explains the lengthy running time of the film (over two and a half hours).  This was not a simple task, and it was also bogged down in politics.  There’s no need to try and spice that up and lie about how things work in the modern spy world.  It may seem strange to praise a film for focusing on tedium, but I feel that it helps the audience identify with Maya’s struggle throughout. 

 

Perhaps tedious is not the best word because I truly found all of the film to be interesting.  It’s just that at some point, since we all know the ending, you start to think, “Okay, come on, we get it, move on.”  This is what Maya is thinking the entire time, as well, though, which is why it works. 

 

There are certain spy elements that may seem a bit boring as Maya goes through files and videos, but Zero Dark Thirty also features some extremely skillfully filmed action elements.  Director Kathryn Bigelow (who was inexplicably snubbed by the Academy) has done an amazing job of recreating events and filming them in a clear way that is easy to follow.  And while Zero Dark Thirty may not contain as many insanely tense moments as The Hurt Locker, it still surpasses that film in ambition and technique.  Bigelow is certainly experiencing the apex of her career right now.  Credit is due to screenwriter Mark Boal, too, as he has turned in an exhaustively researched script that never feels fake or too extensive. 

 

Overall, I am glad I held off from compiling my top ten list until I had seen this film because it will certainly be on it.  Zero Dark Thirty is an immensely effective, entertaining, and thought-provoking film that features a masterful leading performance.  It pretty much does everything that I think a movie should do, and it does it well.  Don’t look to Zero Dark Thirty to form your opinion on torture, look to it for a much larger picture of the war on terror and what it has all been about.  It won’t answer all of the questions for you, necessarily, but it will make you think, and that is much more effective.

"The Hurt Locker"

The Hurt Locker - Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, starring Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty - Rated R

Who better to represent a tense movie than Anton Chigurh?

The Hurt Locker finally came out relatively close to Cannelton (about an hour and a half away) so here's a review for a movie that's been released theatrically for over two months now.

The Hurt Locker, simply put, is a great film. Based in Iraq in 2004 (though I've read that the year is only listed on some prints, not all, I'll get into why that's important later), The Hurt Locker follows a bomb disposal unit during it's last forty days in rotation. Armed with that knowledge, one might assume that the movie is one typical bomb disposal scene to another featuring lines like, "Which wire do I cut?" and "It's gonna blow!!!" But this movie turns those Hollywood staples on their head and creates countless nerve wracking, realistic scenes.

The film starts with the unit following protocol, using a robot to get close to an IED (improvised explosive device) and take care of it via remote control. It's a tense scene and it sets the tone and style for the entire movie, but I don't want to watch a movie about bomb disposing robots. Enter Jeremy Renner as new team leader Staff Sgt. James. When out on his first call with Sgt. Sanborn (Mackie) and Spc. Eldridge (Geraghty), James tells them to leave the robot and help him put on the blast suit. He then strolls off at a leisurely pace, stops to back off a brave cabbie at gunpoint, then finds the bomb and disarms it without seeming to give a second thought about it. Sgt. James never looks like he is unsure which wire to cut, he only seems to be looking for the right wire. From the get go, you can tell he either has a death wish or an addiction to adrenaline...or both. Either way, Sanborn and Eldridge aren't too happy about it and that leads to some entertaining and tense interactions with them throughout.

The seeming ease of the first disposal doesn't mean that everything is a walk in the park. There are different circumstances and locales during the film and it always stays fresh. I don't want to give away details, but let's just say you won't be bored, you might be disgusted once or twice, but boredom won't factor in, trust me.

A movie in which any character could die at any minute is only as good as its characters and that's what makes this film stand out. The three main soldiers are not mindless, bland grunts. They are characters. I already mentioned James and his need for a rush or death. Tie that in with his interactions with the team and you have a realistic character on your hands. Sanborn tries to be the sane, balanced character of the group, constantly arguing with James about procedure and risking all their lives, but he has more going on than that. He has ambitions and he certainly want to survive. And then there's Eldridge, by far the most troubled of the group. He has "sessions" with a base doctor about how scared he is of death. So you know, since this is a war film, that he's going to have to deal with that fear quite regularly. Throw these three guys together and the film writes itself.

The other factor that raises this film from the good category into greatness is director Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break, Strange Days). She creates tension as well as any director out there. I know I may sound like a broken record with all this tension and nerve talk since that was a focus of my review of Inglourious Basterds, but I cannot help it. It just so happens that the last two films I've seen are filled with amazingly tense moments. With The Hurt Locker, it's more than just the possibility of an instant explosion (don't get me wrong, that tension is obviously there), it's also the setting. IEDs can be hidden under any pile of trash so when Sgt. James is walking in a garbage strewn street, it might as well be a minefield, and Bigelow frames to shot to show it as such. The director also knows when to cut to the many bystanders during each disposal scene. In the Iraq setting, who can tell the difference between an innocent onlooker and a terrorist, especially when normal devices like cell phones can be used to detonate the bomb? Bigelow uses all of these elements to eat at the nerves of the viewer. She also films explosions quite well, showing the gritty details without making it seem gratuitous.

I want to mention a few minor details regarding the year of the film before I wrap up. As I wrote above, the version I saw set the movie in 2004. But I have read on message boards that the version people saw in Canada and New York did not have the year at the beginning. Some have claimed that setting the movie five years in the past somehow lessens the political aspect of the film. If it's about the past, then it's not a comment on the war right now or something. If that's the case I don't think it works, especially since the movie ignores political views. There are no questions about whether or not the war is justified, there's only the theme (mentioned in the opening line) that war is like a drug. Apply whatever political meaning you want out of that idea; the point is the film itself doesn't make any decisions for you. Political or not, the year is an issue and I do believe was added by the studio because it creates a few mistakes. First off, a soldier mentions youtube, which wasn't around until 2005 (I know, I know, I thought it had been around longer myself, but I looked it up: February 2005). Secondly, a soldier is seen playing the Xbox 360 game "Gears of War" which wasn't released until 2006. To be honest, none of this occurred to me while I was watching the film, but I know that stuff like that bothers some people, so just know that the year may have been a late addition by the studio.

All of that political/what year crap aside, this is a film worth watching and if it does get some nominations (hopefully for director, actor, and picture) it certainly deserves them. I want to point out, though, that depressing and tense though the film may be, it is also quite entertaining. There is plenty of action aside from bomb disposal (I thought the sniper scene was great) and the cameos from David Morse and Ralph Fiennes are a lot of fun. If The Hurt Locker makes its way to a theater near you, check it out. If not, at least check it out on DVD, you won't be sorry.