Zero Dark Thirty Essay
Zero Dark Thirty is a film that sparked a great deal of debate. The debate has been elevated by the controversy over the events depicted in the film, and their implications. The film is a darkly realistic unfolding of the events following the September 11, 2001 attacks in The United States. The events climax with the discovery and killing of the suspected architect of the attacks, Osama bin Laden. This film is like an exposure from the inside point of view of the agents involved with the gathering of information, the CIA. The thought-provoking film almost forces us to question government secrecy, counterterrorism, and most importantly, the inhumanity of the tactics used. The main focus of the debate concerning Zero Dark Thirty centers on torture, the necessity of it, and the impact of the means by which information was retrieved by the CIA and other offices involved, both in reality, and by the visual interpretation of the events that are evident in the film. Many reviews have surfaced, both in favor of and questioning the intentions, the brutality, and secrecy of Zero Dark Thirty. This essay will focus on six reviews of the film. Three of the reviews will be positive, and three of the reviews will be negative. A commentary of pivotal points from the author’s words will be presented, in accord with assignment, along with as my interpretation and comments on these views.
The first viewpoints of critique that will be presented on Zero Dark Thirty are the positive viewpoints. Because of the subject matter of the film, as well as the techniques and evidences of torture, it is difficult for any review to have an absolutely sunny view. The subject matter revolves around one of the darkest times in the history of The United States. However, several reviews hold positive feedback from the film, and these reviews, along with the authors will be given.
The first positive review of Zero Dark Thirty is Reviewer #1, Spencer Ackerman. Mr. Ackerman’s career is that of a reporter of National Security, for the most part. This fact justifies his commentary to some extent, because as a reporter of these kinds of events, he would have in-depth knowledge of issues surrounding the whole history of 9/11. In the article he wrote, entitled Two Cheers for Zero Dark Thirty’s Torture Scenes, Ackerman makes it clear in his statements that the torture, though resoundingly crude and brutal in movie view and real life, did not produce many of the answers the CIA sought. He wrote, “There is little interrogation presented in ‘Zero Dark Thirty’. There is a shouted question, followed by brutality.” (Ackerman, 2012). All in all, there is a sense in summary that Spencer Ackerman appreciates the film, and defends the director, Kathryn Bigelow, of “The Hurt Locker” fame—incidentally the first woman to win an Academy Award for best director, from the accusation of being an apologist of torture. Mr. Ackerman delivers sound reasoning for his positive view of the film, and is quite truthful about the fact that the CIA doesn’t get what it desires from the brutality, but that it does expose what goes on in detail.
The review, By Any Means Necessary: Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty by reviewer #2, Mahnola Dargis, a reporter for the New York Times, is also a positive look at the film. But Dargis’ focus of appreciation is more in the summarization of the movie than the elevated cause for appreciation and defense of director Kathryn Bigelow immediately expressed by Spencer Ackerman. Ms. Dargis focuses on the aspect of the agent Maya, played by actress Jessica Chastain. Dargis speaks at length about the character, who is focused in on her new work, but without the usual emotion the average viewer has come to expect in a character in this kind of situation. Although Dargis voices similar points as Ackerman, she does so with a more humanistic viewpoint, and a globally human scope, by writing that Zero Dark Thirty “is also a wrenchingly sad, soul-shaking story about revenge and its moral costs, which makes it the most important American fiction movie about Sept. 11;” (Dargis, 2012). She goes on to make more points in regard to the degradation of humanity within the film, but does not rally against it, seeing and writing about the hard truths with a different tone.
The third and last positive review comes from Frontline reporter and reviewer #3 Patrice Taddonio, who wrote an article pertaining to the film for Public Broadcasting (PBS) entitled WATCH: How the CIA Helped Make Zero Dark Thirty. In this brief view, Taddonio brings up similar issues as both Spencer Ackerman and Mahnola Dargis. Her focus is on the techniques of torture themselves, as a promotion for what was at the time, in 2015, an upcoming Frontline event featuring the CIA. The most important issue Patrice Taddonio brings to the review of Zero Dark Thirty is the fact the she writes descriptively, if not at length, how “the CIA secretly worked with the filmmakers, and the movie portrayed the agency’s controversial ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ — widely described as torture— as a key to uncovering information that led to the finding and killing of bin Laden.” (Taddonio, 2015). A video scene from the movie is linked in to draw the viewer to the Frontline presentation. Taddonio’s view is one of exposure and fairness, which is one of the known hallmarks of Public Broadcasting Service. In my opinion, this exposure was more important than the positive aspect of the review, because the audience, or reader can decide for themselves what they think about the aspect of torture in the film, and do not feel pressured from either side.
The next three reviews are not positive, and are not a defense of Zero Dark Thirty. The reviews hinge on the graphic nature of the film, and its necessity and impact from the film standpoint as well as the actual events leading to the capture of Osama bin Laden. There is also the question faced and exposed by Maya, as she seems to symbolize a break from what use to be the only options from a cold war long gone, and replaced by actions from terrorists who do not respond as expected to old tactics. As before, these reviews will be expressed in summary, similarities will be drawn, and a final viewpoint from the essayist will be made before conclusion.
The first of the negative reviews comes from reviewer #4, Peter Maass. In his article, Don’t Trust Zero Dark Thirty, the reporter for The Atlantic did not appreciate the movie’s focus on torture because it did not help in the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden. Maass is most uncomfortable not only with the uselessness of the torture of captives, but also of the sense that “Zero Dark Thirty represents a new genre of embedded filmmaking that is the problematic offspring of the worrisome endeavor known as embedded journalism”. (Maass, 2012). Maass gives his negative review for good reason, at least, just as the others do. He expresses in a purist’s tone a fear that this look at tactics by the CIA is receiving and sending a view by the media involved that is far more damaging the graphic nature of the torture, a view that harbors on distrust of even the supposed heroes of this piece, by quotes from the film. His technique of using the film’s quotes is effective in establishing his negative review of Zero Dark Thirty. One of my favorites, to prove Maass’ point, was when he said, “Did it really happen? Did the film's heroine, who is called Maya, really tell the CIA director, during a meeting about bin Laden's compound, "I am the motherfucker that found that place’?” (Maass, 2012).
The final of the negative reviews and of all the reviews comes from reviewer #6, Owen Glieberman, who writes in his Entertainment Weekly viewpoint concerning the film. Is Zero Dark Thirty pro-torture? And if so, is it telling a lie? Glieberman is seemingly more detailed in his viewpoint, and has the same calm as Mahnola Dargis in her positive writing about the film. Owen Glieberman does write fair points about the movie, as have all the other reviewers. He mentions that there is a “great deal of reality in the plot of Zero Dark Thirty, technically speaking.” (Glieberman, 2013). But his whole focus throughout his historical glimpse of such methods used to gather information conclude that the torture itself was a moral wrong that had no effect, just as all of the other writers mentioned. Glieberman goes on to point out that, in the first incident of cruelty, the agents are only able to produce answers of any kind from the captive after they allow him to clean up, and lie to him over a table of food while hoping to convince him by their kindness that he has given up information already. Glieberman answers the pro-torture question with the answer that while the film isn’t a film that supports torture thereby. But it also is not against torture, either.
In my opinion, there was a common thread that all the reviewers shared, and that thread is, that Zero Dark Thirty was a truthful, if only truth based exposure of torture tactics. As for me, I liked the fairness in approach to the issues. If I could say which author was most quiet yet passionate about his critique, I would say it is reviewer #6, Owen Glieberman, because his approach was very detailed and thoughtful. As for the most boisterously, and vocally effective approach, it was that of reviewer #1, Spencer Ackerman, whose points immediately told the reader where he stood. The writer most pure about his pursuit in writing was reviewer #4, Peter Maass, who was also very detailed in his review. Yet the viewpoint I preferred was that of reviewer #2, Mahnola Dargis, whose calm writing mentioned the sadness of the humane aspects of the Zero Dark Thirty, yet kept a positive stance in favor of it. This is a remarkable reflection of my personal view.
Overall, I really liked each review of this film, and only one was somewhat satisfying in my opinion. I enjoyed the point blank blasts by the reviewer #1, Spencer Ackerman. I admired also the work of reviewer #3, Patrice Taddonio, because her stance was expository and positive, although it was brief as well. I somewhat liked the work of reviewer #5, Matt Taibbi, but quite honestly could not see how his title, Zero Dark Thirty is Osama bin Laden’s Last Victory Over America reflected on his writing against the film. My justification is, that, my humble opinion, his title reads a little on the sensational side, like a title meant for attention, and seemed to have nothing to do a review of the film Zero Dark Thirty. That is really my only complaint of anything I have read from these authors. I could see the points raised by the authors in every treatment of the film’s subject matter. The movie was a inhumane treatment, but a necessary evil that needed to be done, even if the actual events were morally wrong. My reasoning is that in both the film’s depiction and reality, the world will never know what it should not do unless it finally exhausts itself on trying things that do not work. I cannot say that the torture was necessary, but the world needed to see it, perhaps so that American viewers, if no others discover that every part of the pie that America represents, has not all been sweet, but was necessary to show that the effort itself, the torture, did not result in the end that was expected. Despite and still, this is one of the greatest films I have seen, and believe that it has a following of films that have exposed things that once only happened behind the scenes in American government.
In conclusion, and in gratitude, I want to speak for and on the work of all critics, and the work of the film in a positive way. I truly and sincerely applaud the negative and positive points brought forth concerning Zero Dark Thirty. It was not a pleasant film, as I have stated before, but it is a necessary exposure that has led people to be more real about what actually happens in situations like this one. I am thankful that each reviewer spoke from different aspects and examples of what each of them liked, or did not like. I also was amazed at their ability to write from so many standpoints about the same film, and yet see the need for the film as well. This indeed has been a journey worth the exploration, and I am grateful for the film, this essay, and last but not least, the brilliant documentation, explorations, and views that have been expressed in writing by the many reviewers of Zero Dark Thirty.
Works Cited
Ackerman, Spencer. “Two Cheers for Zero Dark Thirty’s Torture Scenes.” Wired. 10 December 2012. Web. 16 June 2016.
Bigelow, Kathryn. “Zero Dark Thirty” Perf. Jessica Chastain, Joel Edgerton, and Chris Pratt. United States: Alliance Films, 2013.
Dargis, Manohla. “By Any Means Necessary.” The New York Times. The New York
Times Co., 18 Dec. 2012. Web. 16 June 2016.
Gleiberman, Owen. “Zero Dark Thirty.” Entertainment Weekly. 2013. Web. 16 June 2016.
Maass, Peter. “Don’t Trust ‘Zero Dark Thirty’.” The Atlantic. 2012. Web. 16 June 2016.
Mayer, Jane. “Zero Conscience In ‘Zero Dark Thirty’.” The New Yorker. 2012. Web. 16 June 2016.
Taddonio, Patrice. “How the CIA helped make ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ — and shape the torture debate.” Public Radio International. 2015. Web. 16 June 2016.
Taibbi, Matt. “Zero Dark Thirty’ Is Osama bin Laden’s Last Victory Over America.” Rolling Stone. 2013. Web. 16 June 2016.
