I come down
squarely on the side of those who believe the film takes the position
that torture was effective in gathering the information that led to
the assassination of Osama bin Laden. The director, Kathryn Bigelow,
and the screenwriter, David Boal, argue that the film does not support or endorse torture. They claim to be merely presenting the
facts, and that it is up to viewers to draw their own conclusions.
Boal says, “It doesn't surprise me that people bring political
agendas to the film but it doesn't actually have a political agenda.
It's agenda is to tell these people's stories in the most honest and
factual way we know how . . .”
First of all, the
film doesn't report everything that happened during those ten years. It is necessarily selective. One of the things it completely leaves out is any debate over either
the efficacy or morality of torture. (You could argue that an even
more significant omission is it failure to present events that
occurred before 9/11, which would reveal bin Laden and
al-Qaeda to be “blowback” from previous CIA activities in
Afghanistan.)
But let's stick to
what is in the film. As filmmakers, Bigelow and Boal should be well
aware of the basic elements of the cinematic code. A film is a
visual argument. Montage—that part of the film that takes
place during editing, the arrangement of successive shots—can
suggest relationships between people and events that may or may not
exist in reality. As Russian director and teacher Lev Kulashov
pointed out, A + B can equal something entirely different.
Kulashov showed viewers an identical shot of a man's face and asked
them to describe his emotional state. When intercut with shots of a
plate of soup, a woman in a coffin and a little girl playing, his
emotion was described as hunger, sadness and joy, respectively.
Zero Dark Thirty
contains a scene in which a prisoner, Ammar, is having lunch
with two CIA agents, Dan and Maya. He gives them valuable
information that eventually leads to bin Laden's courier and bin
Laden himself. Prior to this, we saw scenes in which Ammar was
brutally tortured—waterboarded, hung by ropes, and locked in a
small box—by Dan as Maya watched. It is virtually automatic that
an experienced media consumer will to draw a causal connection
between the two scenes—that Ammar gave them the information because
of the torture, and to avoid further torture. In fact, Dan reminds
him that he could be tortured again. (Boal claims that a scene of
Maya in her research room shows that all the important information
was already available from detainees who were not tortured, but I
would suggest that this scene is not very salient and its meaning is
unclear.)
Another Russian
filmmaker, V. I. Pudovkin, said montage is “the method which
controls the 'psychological guidance' of the spectator.” It is
possible, if you have the necessary information, to counterargue with
this natural tendency—to tell yourself that the filmmaker's
implication that torture is effective is false. However, it is
unrealistic to expect very many viewers to draw this conclusion. The
film could impact public opinion, as some would argue the fictional
television drama already 24 has. Although the reasons are
unclear, the percentage of Americans who say torture is rarely or
never justified has shown a small but steady decline, from 53% in 2004 to 42% in 2011.
Filmmaker Michael Moore defends Zero Dark Thirty, arguing that the average
viewer “will be repulsed” by the torture scenes: “After
watching the brutal behavior of CIA agents for the first 45 minutes
of the film, I can't believe anyone of conscience would conclude that
this is morally NOT right.” But Moore is ignoring the possibility
that we have already been desensitized to torture scenes by years of
fictional programming. He is also making the egocentric assumption
that other people will have the same reaction to the film as he did.
But the torture scenes are embedded in a narrative in which the
torturers are the heroes and their goal of killing bin Laden is one
of which the audience strongly approves. To make things worse, the
heroine, Maya, who the film suggests may have been responsible for
the death of one prisoner, is is ignored and patronized by her CIA
colleagues, making her ultimate triumph a victory for feminism as
well.
Below is a discussion of some of these issues that appeared on the PBS News Hour.
There
has been little comment about last 45 minutes in which the Navy Seals
fly by helicopter to bin Laden's compound, break into the buildings,
and kill bin Laden and several other people. Here again, the problem
is omission. No one raises the question of whether the U.S.
government had the right to execute bin Laden and several others
suspected of lesser crimes without due process of law. Zero
Dark Thirty implies, however,
that the alternative of bring him back alive for trial was never
seriously considered.
Glenn Greenwald maintains that Zero Dark Thirty is U. S. government propaganda
directed at American citizens. Peter Maass refers to it as “a
troubling new frontier of government-embedded film-making.” Unlike
other branches of government, the CIA is forbidden to distribute
propaganda in this country. However, this is nothing new for the
Defense Department. As David Robb argues in Operation Hollwood:
How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies, film studios
usually require military cooperation in order to produce technically
realistic-looking war movies. In exchange, the Pentagon is given
script approval—veto power over points it disagrees with and the
right to insert its own ideology into the films. The predictable
result is films that arguably distort history, i.e., Blackhawk
Down, or function as recruiting videos for the services, i.e.,
Top Gun.
But Zero Dark
Thirty takes this process a step further. The opening title
claims that the film is “based on first hand accounts of actual
events.” That is, they received privileged access to classified information of the type that the CIA usually prosecutes people for
revealing. But the CIA's claim that torture was instrumental in the
hunt for bin Laden is at odds with conclusions drawn by other
branches of government, such as the FBI and Congress, and may
conflict with the views of a minority of CIA employees. We are
getting not the government's point-of-view, but that of a subgroup
within the government. The effect is to empower the most brutal and
reactionary ideology within the “defense” establishment—the
Cheney-Rumsfeld plan for fighting terrorism. The film propagandizes
the American people in an effort to get them to accept war crimes by
their own government.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.