"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.

"Super 8"

Super 8 - Written and directed by J. J. Abrams, starring Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Riley Griffiths, Kyle Chandler, Ron Eldard, and Noah Emmerich - Rated PG-13

Nostalgia, explosions, and heart all in a summer movie? Hear, hear!

Do you ever catch an old Spielberg movie on TV like E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, or Jaws and find yourself saying, “They don’t make ‘em like that anymore”? Well, Super 8 is proof that they do. The J.J. Abrams-directed, Spielberg-produced sci-fi film is filled with nostalgia, child-like wonder, and…lens flares (more on those later). Super 8 is a throwback not only in the sense that it takes place in the past (1979 to be specific), but also in that it represents a true family film.

A real family film is a rare thing these days. Most parents just settle for whatever animated Pixar film their kids want to see to fill the family film void. To be fair, Pixar has cornered the market on children’s movies that also appeal to adults but they are still first and foremost films meant for children. Super 8 is the film that a parent can take their teen-aged and near teen-aged kids to see. That is the age group that this film caters to because the principal cast is that age. Kids may come out of this one with the same sense of awe that their parents had after seeing E.T. for the first time. Adults will leave with a nice sense of nostalgia for their own childhood.

Nostalgia doesn’t really describe what this film is about, but don’t expect much in the way of synopsis in this review. Super 8 has gained attention for its mysteriousness and I certainly don’t want to spoil any of the mystery. Personally, I didn’t find the plot to be so amazing and out there that it needed to be so protected, but a film is always better if you don’t know everything about it before you go in. The basic plot, from the previews, involves a group of kids who witness a train wreck while filming an amateur movie. The train was carrying some top secret cargo that the military is keen to protect. That’s all you’re getting from this review on the plot. This is a movie, after all, which ended its main preview with the line, “What the hell?”

Now back to that whole childhood nostalgia issue. Since this film takes place in 1979 the kids in this film are very different from today’s generation. No smart phones, iPods, or internet. This is not just a device to add humor to the film, though that is used to good effect at times. (The time period also allows for a fantastic soundtrack, by the way.) This was a time when parents couldn’t keep tabs on their child’s every movement. In fact, things have changed so much that the parents may appear to be extremely negligent in this film because of how little they know about their kids’ whereabouts. That’s an argument for others; the point is that children of yesteryear were able to go off on their own adventures. Super 8 presents a small-town America that just doesn’t exist anymore and that might sadden some, but it will probably just leave the older audience members with a pleasant feeling about how simple life could be years ago.

All feelings about the past aside, Super 8 is also a very entertaining film. This is still a summer movie, after all. There isn’t nonstop action or anything in the film, but when things do happen, they look pretty great. Overall, it’s simply a very interesting film that is filled with humor and heart. Much of that is due to the writing, but the cast is vital. On the younger side, Joel Courtney (Joe), Riley Griffiths (Charles), and Elle Fanning (Alice) stand out and provide the emotional core of the film. They are never annoying and they felt like a natural fit for the film. On the adult side, Kyle Chandler (Jackson) and Ron Eldard (Louis), give strong performances as the troubled fathers of two of the leads.

The father-son/father-daughter relationships in the film are what give Super 8 a resonating effect. By the end of the film, you feel something for these characters and their relationships. The film provides that emotional punch that is so rare in summer movies. We sometimes forget amid all the explosions and superheroes that a summer film can also contain realistic characters that can evoke an emotional response from the viewer.

The emotional response is something that was always found in Spielberg’s early sci-fi films and while Spielberg is all over this film (even down to the Amblin logo at the beginning), this is still Abrams’ film. In a phrase: lens flares. Those who have seen Abrams’ first two films (Mission Impossible 3 and Star Trek) know that the director likes to shine light into the camera to the point that it causes a lens flare to appear onscreen. It almost draws attention to itself at times, but the flares give the film a look and colorful lens flares make sense for a sci-fi film.

There are many more things to get into with Super 8 but that would be getting into dorky gushing over the movie. Obviously, this reviewer loved it. This is a movie that is nearly for everyone. When you check it out, and I hope that you do, bring the family because they don’t make ‘em like this very often.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Absolutely loved this movie, obviously, but if there was one problem I had with it it was the fact that the scientist who derails the train actually survives the crash. I understand he had to so he could give the kids a few hints or whatever, but no way someone survives that. Couldn't they have just found the body and the map? Wouldn't that have been enough?

I was definitely catching a Cloverfield vibe from the monster design. Almost like this is a prequel to that film and the alien comes back when it grows up or something.

Not going to list all of the easter eggs I spotted (especially since /Film has already handled it so well), but just know that the attentive viewer/Abrams-obsessive fan will get plenty of little treats.

I loved the amateur zombie movie scenes. As a zombie-movie dork I loved every little moment shown in the film from the make-up to the nail in the back of the head zombie kill to the Romero reference.

1979 was such a great time period for this movie. I loved that the kids had to wait three days to get their film developed and that was considered "rush." And the reference to the first Walkman and the sheriff's fear of kid's running around with headphones stuck in their ears was amusing.

After X-Men: First Class and this film, it is quickly becoming an art of how to most effectively use your one f-bomb in a PG-13 movie.