Mise à nu

And since when does a movie have to be factual, realistic or based on truth to be noteworthy? I don't care about the implications of this movie so much as the intriguingness of the way in which it is presented to the viewer. It in some way says "we all fear for our own security/safety". Maybe its a little over the top, blunt and not politically correct, but movies are meant to provoke us, to entertain us.. not to feed us facts - unless of course, we are watching a documentary :)

The first thing I thought after seeing this movie was "wow, that would make an awesome screen play for theater". I wasn't really committed to or concerned with factual events, presentation of ideas (political, social or otherwise), or what I would take away from it. I did, however enjoy the intent of the director to provoke the viewer to think for themselves a little. There was not enough information presented to draw factual conclusions regarding the character of either "victim". In fact, I am not certain the word victim is appropriate. Were they? Or are we? I liked that it left me with that thought. I think everyone has an opinion regarding the events of 9/11 and I think this movie draws those opinions out in the viewer and re-validates them a bit. Good or bad.

Very original presentation of a not so original plot.

I saw a piece of this film last week, yet it appears nowhere on HBO's website now, except a mention in HBO on demand. The part I saw was shocking, and thought provoking.

I researched it on IMDB and that is where I found most of my information. I also saw reports from others here that HBO had canceled showings. I think I saw "Strip Search" mid-morning on May 1st. It seemed on at an odd time considering the subject matter and nudity. I was hoping to see it again in it's entirety.

However, in light of recent news events, I feel it is an important film. CBS withheld it's coverage of Iraqi prisoner mistreatment, by their own admission, until the story broke through international news agencies.

The little bit I saw convinced me that once again HBO had the courage to make a movie about a controversial subject, to do it with artistic integrity, without being afraid to "shock the monkey" and to hire a first rate cast of actors who are also willing to be risk takers.

With writing by Tom Fontana, direction by Sidney Lumet, and a cast including Maggie Gyllenhaal, Ellen Barkin, Glenn Close, Patti Lupone, Josh Mostel, Estelle Parsons and Oliver Platt... this is not a venture that was undertaken lightly.

I am shocked that it is nowhere to be seen.

How are the artists involved in this project responding to what seems to be censorship at its worst?

Why has this happened? I've come to expect more of HBO. I hope that this is not a sign that HBO is caving under the political powers that be.

Let the audience decide. Not the voices of the few and first and loudest. Most of my friends never even heard about this movie. When I took them to the HBO website, they were as shocked as I am to find it mysteriously missing.

Janice L. Gass

Just saw this movie last night, and I was quite impressed. At my first opportunity, I did a Google search on it and found this page. Reading through the comments, I wonder how many of those who dismissed the movie and its premise as unadulterated propaganda (albeit prior to the Abu Ghraib scandal coverage) might reconsider given recent revelations of American behavior in violation of the Geneva Convention. Several such comments reflect a belief that the nudity in the film was there purely for titillation. However, in the aftermath of the prison misconduct in Iraq, its pretty clear that this stuff happens. The nudity in the movie hasn't a damned thing to do with desire. Rather the nudity illustrates the degree to which the state can and does dehumanize and terrorize (allusion intended) the individual, confident in its rationale that circumstances warrant such measures. Let me tell you, I find Maggie Gyllenhall crazy, raving hot, but all I felt while watching this movie was revulsion and a keen awareness of my own vulnerability were I in the maw of The State/System.

"48 hours, 7 days, 6 months... as long as it takes...". Chilling, chilling stuff, definitely check it out.

In the aftermath of the September, 11th, in China, the American student Linda Sykes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is interrogated by the military Liu Tsung- Yuan (Ken Leung). In New York, the Arab student Sharif Bin Said (Bruno Lastra) is interrogated by the FBI agent Karen Moore (Glenn Close). The psychological methods of interrogation are the same, amicable in the beginning and brutal in the end; but there is no evidence that the students are terrorists. Must security and safety of the State come at the price of freedom?

"Strip Search" is a film directed by Sidney Lumet with the same dialogs and situations in two totally different countries, with two students that might be connected to terrorist networks being interrogated at the same time. The movie shows that torture does not depend of the country and the importance of civil liberties to the individuals. I lived a great part of my life in a dictatorship and I know the importance of freedom and democracy. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Inspeção Geral" ("General Inspection")

Sidney Lumet has made some historical movies: "12 Angry Men," "Serpico," "Dog Day Afternoon," "Network," and "Prince of the City," so it was a no-brainer for me about whether or not I was going to watch "Strip Search."

Out of deference to Sidney Lumet, I don't want to call it a fail, because it wasn't. I didn't like it as much as I wanted, but it's not a fail. I totally understood the point of it and the message behind it even if I didn't like the production.

"Strip Search" openly aims to make you understand that giving up your civil liberties, even in the name of fighting terrorism, can lead to a repressive government. There are two main characters, an American woman in China (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and an Arab man in the U.S (Bruno Lastra). The two have been grabbed by law enforcement officers of the respective countries and the two go through an identical interrogation process. There's no denying the fact the writer, Tom Fontana, chose one of the world's freest countries and one of the world's most repressive countries for comparison for a reason. In the name of fighting terror, America and China end up looking alike.

Before the two ex-patriates are taken we see a class going on in which the teacher asks: "If the U.S. government said they could eliminate terrorism forever, would you give up your civil liberties for a day?" All of the class answered yes. "A week?" Again, they all said yes. "A month? A year? Forever?" And with each extension of time the yesses were fewer and fewer until there were no more. It's a powerful question that requires more and more thought, but the point was made: there's definitely a point in which civil liberties outweigh "safety."

The tone of the movie was a bit muted which took away from any intensity. There was no musical score and the two "suspects" were, for the most part, acquiescent. Though they asked questions and showed a little defiance, there was no real resistance from either of them as you'd expect from an innocent person who's been falsely accused. The capitulating was probably because they were visitors trying to avoid the wrath of a foreign government, although I think even a Chinese citizen would be just as compliant. What you end of having with "Strip Search" is a movie with a poignant message and an anemic delivery.