Movie Review: Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Maya (Jessica Chastain) is a seemingly-single-minded CIA operative who we first meet during the interrogation and torture of a prisoner following 9/11. She first appears to be a reluctant participant in the torture, but soon comes to at least tacitly support it. We then follow her and a supporting cast over the next decade as they struggle to find Osama Bin Laden. Finally, in 2011, her work pays  off, and a U.S. Navy SEAL team is sent in to kill Bin Laden (an impressive scene shot with green lenses and night goggle-type effects). Scrapping together a fictionalized account based on interviews and available information, Katherine Bigelow and Mark Boal first wanted to write a film about the failed attempt to capture bin Laden then scrapped that when he was killed and started over, though with years of research already in the bank.          

Zero Dark Thirty received critical accolades upon its release and was nominated for five Oscars (including Best Picture, Best Actress (Chastain) and Best Original Screenplay, winning for Best Sound Editing) and four Golden Globes. It is a riveting story that centers on Maya and her brave, lonely and relentless struggle to find Bin Laden. It thus becomes the rare Hollywood film where a woman plays the lead as a hero without really being sexualized or even having a love interest. She is instead the typical male monomyth that is single-minded in pursuing victory while those around her stumble and fail in their ineptitude or cowardice. And the film is entertaining, building like all good stories toward the third act resolution with increased drama and tension -- and a riveting reenactment), followed by an apt denoument, as she sits alone on a plane crying as she prepares to return home. 

The film was originally lauded for its "neutral" or "balanced" stance on torture, but many did critique it for essentially advocating for torture, or as Zizek put it -- normalizing it by failing to consider its ramifications or lack of effectiveness in so many cases. In fact, I couldn't help but consider it as a propaganda piece for the military, Bush/Obama torture policy (more the former) and Obama's ultimate victory in overseeing the execution of the the most infamous terrorist in history. In fact, it was only after receiving extensive criticism that Sony Pictures decided to delay the release until after the election. And it does seem to take a less than nuanced position on the effectiveness of torture, with several scenes involving CIA operatives and leaders complaining about their inability to use those techniques to get new intel. The actual torture scenes, while brutal, fail to offer much in the way of critique -- instead providing the foundation from which the rest of the film develops (a clue to the person that ultimately leads them to Bin Laden). 

Film is, of course, an art form and shouldn't be explicitly responsible to anything except itself. Yet it is clear that film and television play an increasingly large role in the formation of the identity and politics of youth. Films that deal with violence and torture should be held in some scrutiny, particularly given the large stakes involved. And Zero Dark Thirty seems to abrogate this responsibility either in deference to telling the most compelling story possible or maybe in supporting a pro-American position that ignores international law and the reality that torture often fails to work (or the questions it raises about the constitution and rights of all citizens). It is a compelling film but one that warrants serious scrutiny for its tacit support of torture -- further amplified by scenes of terrorism that seem to create a parallel violence that warrants the methods used. This is not to argue in any way for terrorism or undermine the work that led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but to ask at what cost that victory has been won? In my mind, the film fails to really ask this question and leaves it to the audience to decide -- clearly pushing them toward answering yes ... A.