"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.

"Green Lantern"

Green Lantern - Directed by Martin Campbell, written by Greg Berlanti & Michael Green & Marc Guggenheim and Michael Goldenberg, starring Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard, Mark Strong, and Tim Robbins - Rated PG-13

Goofy, a little weird, and even crappy at times, but still decently entertaining.

The comic book movie train speeds on with by far the strangest comic creation to hit the screen this summer with Green Lantern. Weird isn’t always good, but the odd elements of Green Lantern make the film stand out a bit, even if the film does get too goofy at times because of it. Overall, despite its flaws, Green Lantern still ends up being an entertaining movie.

Green Lantern is about Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), a reckless pilot who is chosen by an alien ring to become earth’s protector. Yes, this is a superhero that gets his power from a magical ring from outer space. That isn’t where the weirdness ends. The film takes Hal from earth to the origin of the ring, the planet Oa. At Oa, Hal is the lone human among all of the other protectors, or lanterns. Hal finds out that there is a battle being waged between will and fear and he must conquer his own fears if he is to save the planet.

All of that should sound a bit out there, but it’s supposed to be. Green Lantern is a slightly self-aware movie. The filmmakers knew that to get away with such outlandish settings there must be a bit of humor to the film and that ends up being the saving grace for Green Lantern. Reynolds, primarily a comedic actor, is really a perfect choice for the arrogant but likable Hal Jordan. Plus, he delivers the Green Lantern oath very well.

If Reynolds isn’t enough for you (or if he annoys you, as plenty of people have complained), then the planet of Oa and its inhabitants might make up for it. Oa isn’t as fully realized as it could’ve been and it doesn’t seem like a real planet with a functioning population, but it is still a very interesting place. The best parts of the film take place on Oa and you may find yourself wishing the majority of the film had been set there. Hal gets introduced to what being a lantern is all about on Oa and, as the only human, the odds are against him. His training scenes are short but entertaining and the supporting cast that lives in Oa is pretty great. Mark Strong stands out as the leader of the lanterns though the film would’ve benefited from more scenes with him. Geoffrey Rush and Michael Clarke Duncan put in some amusing voice work as well.

Hal spends the majority of his time on earth and while the film doesn’t look as interesting in this familiar setting, there are some interesting characters there. Tim Robbins, Angela Bassett, and Blake Lively populate the rest of the cast ably, but it is Peter Sarsgaard who makes the film fun. It was hard to keep count of how many times Sarsgaard shrieked maniacally throughout the film, but each time it was amusing. He added a strange element to his performance that made him quite the interesting foil to Reynolds.

Green Lantern is a film that gets plenty of things right and manages to breathe a little life into the whole superhero origin story. For one thing, the film is refreshing because the origin of the character consists of a man putting on a ring that instantly makes him the hero. It also helps that the film is willing to play with the goofiness of a superhero’s outfit with a character pointing out that an eye mask doesn’t really disguise a person. This movie is not high art; it’s not even sophisticated by comic book movie standards. But it is a bit of harmless fun.

That said, there are still a few problems with the movie. First off, the simplistic plot elements are childish to say the least. The power of the ring is fueled by will? The opposing evil force of the universe is simply fear? That’s just weak and it leads to silly dialogue about conquering fears that are never clearly defined. It also makes the film sound too much like a Star Wars film with all the “don’t give in to your fear” lines. In fact, it’s all childish enough that it makes this movie more of a film for kids than adults, which is unexpected since comic book movies these days tend to be as gritty and harsh as possible. Perhaps this isn’t even a negative for some viewers, but if you’re expecting something with the tone of The Dark Knight, you won’t find it here.

Secondly, the effects of the film work at times (the CG suit was fine, the 3D was serviceable, and there are some great images) but are absolutely atrocious at others. Seriously, some of the effects looked like they were from a film from the late 90s (most notably in a scene involving a helicopter). The action in general was entertaining but it’s all a bit of a letdown when you consider the fact that the ring can make anything. When imagination is the limit there should be something more interesting than guns being formed by the ring.

Finally, the stakes just weren’t high for this film. There never seemed to be a true sense of danger to the film and some of the major battles were uninspired and just too easy. All of these things might be major problems for some viewers, but if you can just sit back and enjoy a slightly goofy, at times childish film, then you’ll be entertained by Green Lantern.

"Robin Hood"

Robin Hood - Directed by Ridley Scott, written by Brian Helgeland, starring Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, William Hurt, and Max von Sydow - Rated PG-13

I'm quite the Ridley Scott fan, so I'm glad I didn't have to give this film a Commodus.

Do we really need a new movie about the legendary Robin Hood? It’s been done countless times, even to the point of parody (remember Robin Hood: Men in Tights?). Well, it turns out that Ridley Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland didn’t want to tell the same old story again, either. The previews for the film proclaim that this film is the story behind the legend, not the legend itself. That story, as it turns out, is extremely interesting and, more importantly, entertaining.

Robin Hood takes place at the turn of the 12th century. Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is among the crusaders following King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston in an amusing, though short role) as he plunders his way through France on his way back to England. Robin is just a soldier, but fate throws him in the middle of a potential war between France and England.

This is not a movie about Robin hiding in the woods, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. This is the story of how he became that man. We get glimpses of his sense of honor; upholding a promise he made to a dying knight, helping a village keep their grain, etc. They are just that, though, glimpses. The full focus of Robin Hood is actually the situation that created the legend.

The political landscape concerns King John and his need to collect taxes from the barons. He lets loose Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong) to basically terrorize the countryside. But Godfrey is in cahoots with the king of France and he’s using French soldiers to collect the taxes and turn the barons against the king. The tax collection is the main thing, though. No one likes paying taxes, but people turn violent when taxes are demanded yet they have no representation in the government, or in this case almost no basic rights at all. So, yeah, Robin Hood is fighting a war on taxes. When put like that, this movie might sound boring, but I assure you, there’s some action.

Ridley Scott has proven himself time and time again when it comes to battlefield action. Robin Hood is further evidence that Scott knows what he is doing. People are comparing this film, unfairly, to another Scott film, Gladiator. Those looking for action on that level are going to be disappointed. The more apt comparison would be to Kingdom of Heaven, Scott’s 2005 crusades film. In fact, you could make the argument that this film is almost a sequel to that film since Richard the Lionheart appears at the end of the film on his way to his crusade. The main difference, and my only real issue with this film, is that Robin Hood is rated PG-13. This basically means that the blood is taken away from the battles. This may seem trivial to some, but I had an issue with it because it’s Ridley Scott. The guy paints a battle with beautiful splashes of blood. Take away that ingredient, and he’s left to make battle scenes where someone gets hit with a sword and just falls over.

The action is great, but there’s not an abundance of it. I was fine with that because I enjoy history and Scott created a great historical world for this film. Others might be bored by the scenes with Marshal (William Hurt) as he discusses political issues within the country. That stuff interests me, though.

Of course, it’s easy to maintain interest when the cast is good. First off, Crowe does a fine job as Robin. He doesn’t give an iconic performance or anything, but he handles the hero role well. Cate Blanchett holds her own as Marion, the strong willed protector of the village. Mark Strong is impressive as usual as Godfrey. It’s only a matter of time before he wins an Oscar.

It’s too bad this cast won’t be coming together for round two. I usually don’t clamor for sequels. I don’t have issues with them, but it seems like a movie is more substantial if it’s a standalone story. I would like to see another Robin Hood because the characters and the world are set up so effectively. The problem here is that if Ridley Scott made that movie, then it would go against the entire point of this film. This is Robin Hood’s origin story because that is a part of the legend that gets the least attention in the other films. I wasn’t interested in seeing the same old story again, but now that I’ve seen what Crowe and Scott have done with the origin, I wouldn’t mind seeing what they could do with the rest of the legend. But Ridley Scott doesn’t make sequels (the closest he has come so far is that he has signed on for an Alien prequel), so I’ll probably never see his version of it. That’s no big deal, though, because Robin Hood stands on its own quite well.