LIFER FEBRUARY 6, 2013
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
How highly improbable that, of all the working Hollywood directors—the grandiose (James Cameron) and the action-addicted (Ridley Scott), the melodramatic (Steven Spielberg) and the blood-obsessed (Quentin Tarantino), the grizzled (Clint Eastwood) and the conspiratorial (Oliver Stone)—Kathryn Bigelow should be the one to best channel the global war on terror. Her 2008 movie, The Hurt Locker, about the leader of a bomb-disposal squad, created a new kind of war movie—small and tense, character-driven and bombast-free—and won an Academy Award for Best Picture. Her new film, Zero Dark Thirty, recently nominated for the prize, will likely serve as our lasting dramatic record of the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
But why her? She is not just a woman, but a woman who once appeared in Born in Flames, a movie about feminists and lesbians trying to take over the United States. She began her career as a painter, studying at the Whitney Museum under Susan Sontag; her first film starred two semiotics professors. It's true that her early commercial movies were often focused on posses of violent men—the motorcycle gang of The Loveless (1982), for example, or the surfers–bank robbers of Point Break (1991). But she often directed them in a way that makes feminist film critics certain that she was secretly speaking to them, stretching out the homoerotic scenes, or casting leading ladies with butch haircuts who know how to hold a gun.
The classic war movies of the post–Vietnam era have generally taken on grand, philosophical themes: the meaninglessness of war, the grinding down of man by the machine—the machine being war itself, represented by someone like Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in Full Metal Jacket, the sadistic marine who turns his boys into instruments of death. But Bigelow's war movies shy away from the Big Message. Except for its dramatic beginning and ending, Zero Dark Thirty unfolds like a police procedural—law enforcement types in yesterday's clothes rough up informants, chase bad leads, and hunt for better ones in the old archives. The dramatic breakthrough in the movie comes by way of ... a back-burner file, like something out of "CSI: Pakistan." Many of the high emotional moments transpire in cubicles. Bigelow keeps her movies airless, morally evasive, and constantly on edge. And that is precisely what makes them suitable for capturing the uneasy mood surrounding the war on terror.
Homage to Monomania
Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty (Source: Columbia Pictures/Jonathan Olley).
Remember the great false note of the war? The big, all caps "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" sign that hung in the background as President George W. Bush announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq. The problem with that message was not just that there was an Iraqi insurgency brewing or that bin Laden hadn't been caught, but that a war on terror never actually ends; it lurks in Pakistan and Yemen and the suburbs of New Jersey, in dark corners you can't name or see. The filmmakers who failed to tune into this visceral feeling of low-level, lingering insecurity paid the price. Green Zone, for example, was a simplistic story of an officer on the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq who discovers there are none and leaks the truth to the media. The message was too easy; the ending too redemptive. It was a flop. The films about the war on terror that have enjoyed the most success—at least artistically—have been documentaries: Taxi to the Dark Side, Gunner Palace, Restrepo.
And like the best documentarians, Bigelow pays close attention to quotidian details and keeps a tight, even claustrophobic, focus on a small corner of the war. She tells the stories almost entirely through the eyes of one person, Staff Sergeant Will James in The Hurt Locker and CIA agent Maya in Zero Dark Thirty. Both protagonists are monomaniacal, with no backstory or future, and no existence outside of war. Bigelow made the unusual decision to focus on a female CIA agent, but that doesn't mean Maya, played by Jessica Chastain, humanizes Zero Dark Thirty. She has no love interest or really any personal connections, outside of her friendship with a fellow agent who gets killed. Sometimes when she talks she sounds more like a creature of destiny than a human being. "I believe I was spared so I could finish the job," she says after her friend's death.
If Will James and Maya are instruments of death, it's unclear what or who made them that way. There is no Gunnery Sergeant Hartman to blame, no sadistic Marine code, no discernible enemy except in the abstract. They are the perfect warriors for the age of terrorism, because they are constructed themselves like terrorists—obsessive loners, reckless in the name of a cause.
Torture was in fact a part of the hunt for bin Laden; how critical it was we won't know for a long time, if ever.
Bigelow has been heavily criticized for the opening scene of Zero Dark Thirty, in which a CIA agent tortures a terrorist suspect and then later uses some information from him to find the name of bin Laden's courier, which turns out to be a critical break in the case. Various security experts who claim to have seen the relevant CIA documents have been arguing over whether torture did produce such information or if the CIA already knew the name of the informant. This is a pointless debate. Torture was in fact a part of the hunt for bin Laden; how critical it was we won't know for a long time, if ever. And Bigelow has never claimed to be making a documentary.
What she's doing is what she has always done in her films, back to her first student film—forcing us to reckon with extreme violence and our visceral feelings about it. The key moment of that torture scene comes when Maya lifts up her mask and lets her red hair tumble out. She, like us, has been watching.
Bigelow has hit this theme before. In her 1995 sci-fi thriller, Strange Days, the main character watches a rape and murder that has been recorded from the killer's point of view. To some, the scene felt less like a critique of snuff films than an actual snuff film, so much so that several critics walked out of screenings. But Bigelow defended the scene as critical to her movie. The real moments of horror, which recur in her movies, happen when the "main character goes through the looking glass and can never return," she has said. They are moments when the characters are forced in a profound way to "identify with the antagonists" and thus lose their innocence.
Bigelow and her co-producer, Mark Boal, have repeatedly insisted that "depiction is not endorsement." But her depictions are deeply uncomfortable and force a different kind of reckoning than you might find in the usual movie about a war between nation-states. The big finale involves the Navy SEALs moving into a compound, which, in this case, means a domestic scene, shoving aside (with one notable exception) the women and children and gunning down all the men. These men are despicable terrorists, but also husbands and fathers. Even though it's an unquestionably triumphant scene, Bigelow doesn't exactly invite us to cheer, the way most war movies would, nor to feel outrage or despair. She just invites us to witness. The toll it takes is obvious from the last moment of the movie, where we see Maya, alone in a transport plane, crying.
Hanna Rosin is a senior editor at The Atlantic and a founder of Slate's women's section, DoubleX. She is also the author of The End of Men. Follow @HannaRosin.
17 comments
In film as in politics, there are no facts, only opinions. At least, according to Ms. Rosin, that's what justifies Ms. Bigelow's depiction of torture as instrumental in finding bin Laden. "Torture was in fact a part of the hunt for bin Laden; how critical it was we won't know for a long time, if ever." The official US position is that torture was not instrumental in finding bin Laden. Perhaps it's a lie, as the US, virtuous as it is, would not want torture to be considered part of its arsenal of effective weaponry along with smart bombs, drones, and nuclear missiles. There are no facts; only opinions.
- rayward
February 6, 2013 at 7:26am
I need to see ZERO DARK THIRTY. Thing is, it's only my creepy pro-torture associates that really recommend it. I'm not sure what message K. Bigalow wanted to send, but I think I know what certain groups have decided to hear.
- Tobbar
February 6, 2013 at 10:56am
I am not pro-torture and would recommend the movie.
- nindustrial
February 6, 2013 at 6:46pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
Also, no discussion of Kathryn Bigelow is complete without a shout-out to her move NEAR DARK-- best vampire movie ever! And it, too, revels in the unease it inflicts on its viewers-- the stragtegy the non-sexy vampires use to hunt humans is chilling, and the extremes they go to in order to crack "the new guy" are horrific. Plus Lance Henrickson.
- Tobbar
February 6, 2013 at 10:59am
Tobbar, I would recommend the movie strongly, and I'm not a "creepy pro-torture" guy. I disagree with Rosin that the correspondence between fact and film, when it comes to torture or any other major element, is a "pointless" consideration. No, the film is not a documentary, but it purports to be a basically faithful (albeit fictionalized) account of events, and it would be disappointing, and a worse film, if it were not accurate in that big-picture way. My bet, though, is that it is. We know that torture was employed, and that interrogations where torture was used were among the sources of information that led to bin Laden. Leon Panetta admitted as much on Meet the Press after bin Laden's killing, and, as the CIA director, he had a front-row seat. He confirmed that view later, saying that there's simply "no question" that some of the intelligence used came from "enhanced" interrogations. Whether torture was "instrumental" in the sense of *necessary* is a very different question, and I suspect that critics of the movie, including those in Congress, are seizing on the ambiguities in that distinction while pretending that there is no ambiguity. Panetta does not concede that torture was a "critical element," preferring to describe it as but "part of the puzzle," and believes that they would have gotten bin Laden without torture. Notice here that we're in the squishy realm of characterization (what is "critical," "instrumental") and counter-factuals (what if no torture had been used), not a clear-cut issue of fact, and to my knowledge no critic of the film has convincingly taken the film to task for getting such a clear-cut issue of fact wrong. Does the film at least allow for ambiguity? Does it strongly say that torture was *necessary*? No! In fact, the film shows Chastain poring over videos of past interrogations where the courier was mentioned, and not all of them are enhanced. The film makes a point of showing that a critical lead concerning the courier had been in the files all along and just inadvertently overlooked, suggesting that they could have been on bin Laden's trail earlier, and, presumably without torture, if not for this bit of "human error." So, I suspect that a lot of the hand-wringing here has some questionable motives -- a desire on the part of politicians to defend current anti-torture policy and not tarnish the capture of bin Laden, and a desire on the part of some libeals to avoid any suggestion that torture could ever be efficacious.
- JakeH
February 6, 2013 at 12:33pm
I am not a fan of "war movies." I served in Viet Nam and have had my senses assaulted by enough blood, guts, gore, and horror to last what's left of my life. I never planned on seeing this movie because of the horror that has been the Iraq/Afghanistan war, but this article has changed my mind. I might even look up her other movies, too.
- DenaliDad
February 6, 2013 at 1:03pm
A truly terrible piece of apologia. Clearly, someone hasn't even tried to engage thoughtfully with the critiques made by Jane Mayer amongst others about various ways the film elides important context. It is beyond debate that, for example, that there was a hotly-fought internal contest over torture within the Bush Administration which is completely absent from the film. There is no representative voice of the countless interrogation experts who attest to the effectiveness of other interrogation techniques as alternatives beyond the gift of the sportcar, which is not exactly lampooned but can hardly be carry the weight of the counter-veiling view. Nor does the film deal with the problematic nature of torture on being corresive to institutions, on producing false positives and being used against innocent detainees that plagued the regime. All of this means that though it tried to raise torture as a prodecural issue - it didn't deal with it with any seriousness. To sweep all this under the carpet with a glib throw-away that the factual details of OBL intelligence are unknowable (so presumably why bother with even turning your mind to it and why bother dealing with known fact) is stupid. And to defend the effort with some guff about it being a self-contained mood which suits the age and the nature of the war is the worst kind of sophist nonsense. This is monumentally awful.
- Willf
February 6, 2013 at 8:28pm
You fault the film for not delving deep into the issue of torture as such. I don't think the film was trying to do that, and I don't think it had an obligation to. It's about the hunt for bin Laden, which, I think we all have to agree, wasn't always pretty. If it got that wrong in a major way -- in a way that even a fictionalized, compressed depiction of events can be said to miss the real story -- then I think that's a legitimate criticism. That's where I agree with you and disagree with Rosin. But, given Panetta's response to the film and comments in the aftermath of bin Laden's kiling, I'm not convinced that the movie did get it wrong. It's a gripping portrayal of this pursuit, (big) warts and all. It seems as though what critics wanted was a PSA that says that torture is evil and never works, or else leaves it out entirely. The former is a political argument not within the film's bailiwick, and the latter is a whitewash. Torture was part of the picture here, no doubt about it. The film leaves open the question of how "instrumental" or "critical" or necessary it was, suggesting in fact that it may well have not been necessary. In the meantime, it subtly acknowledges the mix of emotions that underlay the American response to 9/11, including fear, desperation, and vengeance. To acknowledge these feelings is not to glorify them, just as depicting torture doesn't glorify that unquestionably real aspect of this story.
- JakeH
February 6, 2013 at 8:50pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
Apologies for the typos above, but the awfulness of this piece made me quite hot under the collar. Better to ignore the existence of the critiques completely, and just defend the merit of the film independently, than pretend you have dispatched these critiques with arguments without even engaging with them at all.
- Willf
February 6, 2013 at 8:33pm
Here is a replacement starting disclaimer for the start film from Amy Zagart from FP to replace misleading one. This film is a work of fiction that tells the story of the hunt for bin Laden from one imaginary CIA officer's perspective. Some of the events depicted are real. Many are not. You won't be able to tell the difference. Plus we made up a lot of shit about torture. We arrogantly contend that this motion picture is the first draft of history even though actual history says otherwise. But don't judge us: it's just a movie. Perhaps if this was displayed it wouldn't be so objectionable!
- Willf
February 6, 2013 at 8:51pm
Well, I assume that everyone who worked on the film knew it was indeed a film. As far I can tell, movies (that is, good or innovative ones) are, in fact, part of a history--the history of film. Like Lincoln, which contained quite a few historical inaccuracies (inaccuracies that wikipedia could helped prevent from appearing), Zero Dark Thirty does not pretend to be anything other than what it is, a movie. For example, the story of Saving Private Ryan is fabricated; yet, many veterans found it to be one of the most vicerally truthful depictions of, not only D-Day, but war. In having such an impact, it became part of our narratives of war, and most, if not all, the war-movies since have tried to elicit that same sort of visceral reaction . (However, SPR's story was fictitious.) I know that I find the most mature, most captivating, and most long-lasting stories to be those in which the author doesn't tell the reader what and how to think; rather, a story is given, and the readers, watchers, listeners must think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. (Thankfully after childhood, we leave behind moralistic fairytales, and begin to think by ourselves.) The best stories are those that don't tell you what to think. What would be the point? Why would we read, watch, or listen to anything if the authors just gave us the "message?" Think of what makes the Iliad a great book.
- jonrosse
February 7, 2013 at 6:51pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
Bigelow is a liar and thief. She's stolen one of the most important stories of this bogus war, and turned it inside out with so many deceits, nobody will ever know exactly what happened. Which is why she got the access, of course. So let's not kid ourselves."She just invites us to witness." What an insult to those who actually do the hard and unpleasant work of witnessing. Witnessing implies an ability to recognise the truth. Bigelow sold her truth-telling capacities to the Pentagon when she won the rights to the fictions underpinning this load of crap.
- fos
February 6, 2013 at 8:58pm
As it's not a documentary, Fos, the filmmakers were entitled to "turn [the story] inside out"; and if it dismays you, that's an aesthetic issue rather than an ethical or political one. If you want to make it such, however, I'd argue that you then have to explain what the "truth" is that the movie is, in your opinion, hiding. It seems to me that your real beef with ZD30 is that the narrative doesn't reflect the world as you see it, rather than that there is some objective world out that that the movie is ignoring. Why, for example, was there a Republican campaign to intimidate Bigelow and the producers just a few weeks ago?
- ironyroad
February 7, 2013 at 12:38pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
1/7/13 11:17 am est///Just on a different point, teh movie was quite good in its documentary style way, even if its doggedness and grayness and hard at times to understand dialogue often trumped accessible enjoyment. I and a few people I spoke to didn't think Jessica Chastain was very good. She to us "tried too hard" and wasn't convincing in her role./// I remarked through the movie to my wife, who also though it was a good, that it seemed an American instance of "Dogma" style of cinema./// On the issue of torture I thought the movie was matter of act about it, didn't flinch from it, and didn't editorialize about it. I reject the criticism that was making a case for torture's use, a case that can be made. She was rather depicting, doggedly faithfully, what happened.///
- basman
February 7, 2013 at 11:23am
I must say that I very much liked Chastain in the role, and I'm not a Chastain fanboy or anything. (I despised her character in Tree of Life.) I thought the most intense moment in the film came when Chastain was telling off her boss, as her face goes from perturbed, to angry, to demonic in the time it takes to make one brief speech.
- JakeH
February 7, 2013 at 6:47pm
2/7/13, 9:21 pm, est,////// Jake I now only have some general recollections of that fight and yes it was a strong point. But I and these specific people I spoke with found her near to fanatical single mindedness, exponentially multiplied by itself, her uni dimensionality, her robotic devotion to task, her over the top appropriation of machismo--"kill those motherfuckers for me"--not believable : and, as noted, we found her and Bigelow working way too hard to create a certain kind of character rather than letting her emerge organically from the movie. ///////According to reviews I've glanced at ours is the contrarian opinion. What can I tell you?
- basman
February 7, 2013 at 9:24pm
SHOW ALL 2 RESPONSES
P.S. Can you or anyone else reading this read the comments and comment on your/their iPad just from the browser, I.E. without an app?
- basman
February 7, 2013 at 9:29pm